Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Council of Europe (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1960, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Western European Union (Immunities and Privileges) Order, 1959, be made in the form of the draft and laid before Parliament.

I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Apprentices and Learners

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will initiate a national survey of the intentions of firms to increase their intake of apprentices and learners in 1961 and the succeeding years when there will be a large increase in the numbers of school-leavers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Peter Thomas): All industries were asked last year by the Industrial Training Council to assess their future training needs. Many

foresee a need to increase their intake, though they feel unable to make precise forecasts.
More recently, in response to an appeal from the President of the British Employers' Confederation, 154 leading undertakings have indicated that it is their policy substantially to increase their intake of boys into skilled occupations during 1961, 1962 and 1963, and a further 62 undertakings have expressed general sympathy with this aim, though they felt unable to commit themselves definitely.

Mr. Prentice: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the 154 firms which gave this affirmative reply to the British Employers Confederation were from a total of over 300 firms, so that only about 50 per cent. gave a really positive reply? Secondly, will the Government themselves try to get an accurate survey made so that they will know how far industry is likely to supply the extra needs of the extra number of school leavers and how far the Government will have to try to fill the gap?

Mr. Thomas: I will accept the figures given by the hon. Gentleman. In reply to the second part of his supplementary question, I do not think there would be much value in duplicating the activities in which the I.T.C. and the B.E.C are already engaged. The Government are very concerned to stimulate industry as much as possible to increase its intake.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a study of the financial and other methods used by foreign Governments to encourage firms to increase their intake of appren-times and learners, with a view to their possible adaptation to the needs of the United Kingdom.

Mr. P. Thomas: My right hon. Friend and I have already studied information about the rôle of government in apprenticeship and training questions in certain major industrial countries While recognising the value of many features of their systems in the national environments to which they belong, I am doubtful whether they could be successfully adapted to our own industrial climate.

Mr. Prentice: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some countries have increased the number of apprentices by some sort


of differential tax system—for example, by having a special training levy for firms which employ skilled workers and by giving a rebate to those who train their share or more than their share? Is not this the time of the year when the Minister might usefully discuss these ideas with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Thomas: I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend is keeping these matters well in mind all the time.

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the new Government scheme for training apprentices.

Mr. P. Thomas: Discussions are proceeding with both sides of industry, and my right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as they are concluded.

Mr. Albu: Does that statement of the Minister mean that the announcement in the Press that the Government intended to institute first-year apprenticeship courses in several Government establishments was premature? Also, in the discussions which are taking place, presumably on the basis of the premature announcement in the Press, has the first year been considered as a first year of the apprenticeship course, or is it to be a pre-apprenticeship year?

Mr. Thomas: The announcements in the Press were both premature and unauthorised. As regards the second matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend prefers not to make an announcement until he has reached agreement with both sides of industry.

Mr. Robens: How soon is shortly?

Mr. Thomas: Very soon.

Youth Employment Service

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he has taken to improve the pay and conditions of service of youth employment officers so that he can recruit to the service men and women of the educational and personal standards recommended by the National Youth Employment Council.

Mr. P. Thomas: The salaries of youth employment officers in local authority employment are a matter for the local authorities' appropriate National Joint Council, which has had a revision of

these salaries under consideration for some time. The Council is aware of the importance of recruiting men and women of the right calibre for this work and my right hon. Friend hopes that it will arrive speedily at an agreed conclusion.
The salaries of youth employment officers employed by my Ministry are agreed by the National Joint Whitley Council. No difficulty is experienced in finding among the Ministry's staff suitable officers for this work.

Mr. Boyden: Will not the Minister bring some pressure to bear on the local education authorities in this matter, because these conditions have been bad for a long time and his own Youth Employment Central Council reported adversely on the training and prospects of youth employment officers? Can not he hurry the matter along?

Mr. Thomas: Salary negotiations are at the moment taking place with local authority associations and I hope that agreement can be reached expeditiously.

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour how many local education authorities operating the Youth Employment Service have failed so far to bring their establishment up to the required strength to cater for the bulge.

Mr. P. Thomas: Most authorities have made proper staffing provision for the bulge. A few have proposals for additional posts under consideration at present. My right hon. Friend is keeping the situation under review.

Mr. Boyden: Has the hon. Gentleman information about the calibre of the new appointments which have been made? Can he say whether they are men of the right quality for these posts?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, we think that those newly appointed are people of the right calibre, and we hope that those who will be attracted to this work will be of the required calibre, also.

Immigrants, Willesden

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Labour how many immigrants are unemployed in Willesden; and what steps he is taking to overcome the difficulties of their absorption into industry.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Edward Heath): I understand that the hon. Member is particularly


concerned with the question of coloured immigrants from Commonwealth countries. On 7th March, there were 268 such immigrants registered as unemployed at Willesden Employment Exchange, including 155 men and 113 women. The Employment Exchange makes every effort to place them in suitable work, and a considerable number have been absorbed into local industry.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that one in nine of immigrants from the West Indies usually come to live in Willesden and that we have a splendid record, particularly in firms like Ascot and Heinz, for integrating these people within local industry? At the same time, will he take steps to persuade those firms which are not yet absorbing coloured workers into their organisations to do so?

Mr. Heath: I am aware that the Borough of Willesden has a very good record in this respect, and I hope that other firms will follow the example set by those good firms.

Factory Inspectorate

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour what is the full establishment strength of the Inspectorate of class II inspectors and the number of such inspectors actually in post; and what is the salary scale for this grade.

Mr. Heath: One hundred and fourteen and 85 respectively. There are also seven candidates awaiting appointment. The salary scale commences at £650, at age 23. It is age-pointed to £750 at age 26 and rises to £1,035 per annum.

Dr. Stross: Does not the Minister agree that it would be desirable to have as many graduates at this level as possible entering the service with suitable scientific qualifications? In view of that need, plus the fact that recruitment is obviously not so good as we had hoped it would be two or three years ago when the White Paper was issued, will he change the salary scale so that it is equivalent to that of the works grade?

Mr. Heath: The question of the balance between those with technical qualifications and those without technical qualifications in the Factory Inspectorate was discussed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the White

Paper of 1956, with the conclusions of which I agree. Various steps have been taken recently to improve recruitment, and I am glad to say that in the last few weeks there has been an increase in the number coming forward. As regards improvement in the salary scale, I should like the hon. Gentleman to know that the figures I have given do not take account of negotiations which are at present going on as a result of recent increases in Civil Service remuneration.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an estimate of the additional work the Inspectorate must face as a result of the recent Factories Act and the comprehensive regulations to be issued for works of civil engineering; and whether he proposes to increase the number of inspectors in post.

Mr. Heath: Additional work arising from new duties is taken into account at each stage in the continuous review of staff requirements. Meanwhile, recruitment of inspectors is proceeding to bring the number in post up to the authorised establishment.

Dr. Stross: Does the Minister agree that it is not only the volume of the work which is increasing but its complexity, and the strain on the members of the Inspectorate, a most devoted body of workers—as devoted as any in the country—is considerable and is likely to increase? Will he, therefore, accept what the House has often urged upon him and his predecessors, in particular that the total numbers within the Inspectorate should be substantially increased?

Mr. Heath: I gave the hon. Gentleman an undertaking to keep the numbers under review as the regulations come into operation. I shall certainly do that.

Mr. Prentice: Is it not a fact that some years ago this country subscribed to an I.L.O. Convention which laid down that factory inspectors should visit each factory or workplace at least once a year? Is it not a fact that we are failing in this respect—indeed, failing to visit them, on average, more than once in two years or even longer? Does this not strengthen the case made by my hon Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) for an increase in the establishment?

Mr. Heath: I should like to have an opportunity of looking at the I.L.O. Convention before committing myself on that point.

Mr. Robens: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give an estimate of the number of factory inspectors with professional qualifications in building construction and civil engineering that will be needed to ensure adequate inspection after the proposed new safety regulations come into force.

Mr. Heath: I am considering what arrangements will be necessary to ensure adequate inspection when these regulations are made, but I cannot at present give the estimate asked for by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robens: When does the Minister think that the regulations will be made?

Mr. Heath: We were hoping that it would be possible to make them by Easter, but perhaps I could make a definite announcement later.

National Service

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent, under his regulations governing the postponement of call-up, the hardship to an employer arising from the loss of skilled labour may be taken into account by hardship tribunals.

Mr. Heath: The National Service Regulations indicate that exceptional hardship to an employer may give ground for postponement of call-up if the absence of the applicant would require new arrangements for carrying on the business or discontinuing it, and if those arrangements would either be unreasonable or require time to make.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that there is complaint from small firms about this kind of hardship not being taken into account by tribunals? Has he in mind the representations which I have consistently made to his Department about a small firm dependent upon apprentices who have completed their training where the production programme is disrupted again and again by the call-up of these men as soon as they become fully skilled? Will he, therefore, review the matter and call to the attention of hardship tribunals what he has just said?

Mr. Heath: I think that hardship tribunals are well aware of the circumstances which I have mentioned to the House. I have seen the cases which have been brought to our notice by the hon. Gentleman. In one case, I think that no application was made for postponement, and in another it is still under consideration.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the Minister bear in mind that, while many of us are grateful to him for the prompt action which his Department very frequently takes in such cases when the circumstances are brought direct to his notice, it is only because local tribunals seem to be unaware of their power to take this matter into consideration that it becomes necessary to trouble the Minister at all? Will he think again about his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler), who asked whether he would take particular steps to see that local tribunals are made aware that they have power and should use the power to take hardship to an employer into consideration in suitable cases?

Mr. Heath: I will certainly look at the point and see that it is brought to their notice.

Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that a man who has been granted deferment of National Service in order to qualify for a profession, and who passes his qualifying examination before 1st June, 1960, is then compelled to undertake his National Service, whereas a man who fails the same examination and is then granted a further deferment beyond that date is exempted altogether; and if he will take steps to rectify this anomaly.

Mr. Heath: Yes, Sir. This is not properly to be regarded as an anomaly. Deferment from National Service for students is granted to enable studies to be completed where this is justified, including a second attempt at a final examination, and the rewarding of success or failure is not involved.

Lieut-Colonel Cordeanx: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in these cases a man who fails the final examination in the first place gains a very considerable advantage both financially and from the point of view of experience in


his job over a man who is successful, and there is obviously a very strong temptation to a person who knows he can pass these exams to fail in the first place? Now that the last date for call-up is coming so very close, will my right hon. Friend consider exempting altogether from National Service those people who are deferred for this reason and who pass their final exams before 1st June next?

Mr. Heath: I hardly think that gentlemen are likely deliberately to fail examinations. I do not think that I could at this stage exempt from National Service those who have passed their examinations. There is the other aspect, that those who failed once, if they were to be called up for National Service, might very well suffer great hardship for the rest of their lives.

Joiners, Bolton

Mr. Holt: asked the Minister of Labour how many vacancies for joiners in Bolton and district are registered at the Bolton Employment Exchange.

Mr. Heath: Eighteen on 15th February, 1960.

Mr. Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Bolton and district the number is now about 80? In view of this and as about 25 apprentices in the joinery trade are liable for call-up, will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to their deferment for some time? Further, is the Minister aware that this situation has been brought about by an increased use of concrete in building and the consequent need for more joiners for shuttering and so on?

Mr. Heath: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me the information which he has given to the House, which I will look into.

Scottish Workers (Employment in England)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that many persons unemployed in Aberdeen have migrated, on the recommendation of his Department, to Luton and other places in England where they are unable to get suitable residential accommoda-

tion; and what steps his officers take, before making such recommendation, to satisfy themselves that persons so migrating are likely to find suitable residential accommodation in England.

Mr. Heath: A number of men from Aberden have recently obtained employment in Luton and elsewhere through the services of my Department. At Luton, where there is a shortage of accommodation, the employer concerned undertook to find suitable lodgings, and I understand that most men from Aberdeen are generally satisfied, although there have been a few complaints. Employment exchanges have standing instructions that persons accepted for employment away from home should not be sent forward unless suitable accommodation is available for them, and I am satisfied that these instructions are being fully carried out.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not a fact that the employers concerned have not found adequate accommodation for all the workers who came? Is the Mijiister aware that this lack of Governmental co-ordination negatives the purpose for which legislation relating to the distribution of industry was passed? Is he further aware that the Tory policy expressed last Friday by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has made industrialists and workers very angry? Will the Minister repudiate that policy and say that it is not Government policy?

Mr. Heath: There has been no lack of Government co-ordination in this matter. The local officer assured himself when the firm carried out the interviews that it would be able to see that accommodation was provided for these men. I have seen various accounts of this matter which have appeared in both the national and local Press. I know that there is a difference of view here, but the regional board for industry has protested at the way in which one or two complaints have been greatly exaggerated.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply and replies to similar Questions relating to industry and employment, I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman must relate his notice to a specific question, otherwise we cannot tell from what point the rule runs.

Mr. Hughes: I referred to a specific question, Mr. Speaker, and to the unsatisfactory nature of the answer.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. The hon. and learned Member made some reference to me in his supplementary question. Could not I be permitted—

Mr. Speaker: I had this in mind— that the Minister was not responsible for the pronouncements of the hon. Member.

Mr. Hughes: May I inform you, Sir, that I gave the hon. Member for Kidder-minister (Mr. Nabarro) notice that I would refer to his speech?

Mr. Nabarro: May I ask for some clarification? To whom were you referring, Mr. Speaker, a moment ago— to the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) or to myself?

Mr. Speaker: I was referring to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), because, unless I misheard it, the supplementary question of the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North contained a reference to some pronouncement of the hon. Member. It was in that context that I spoke.

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will provide hostel accommodation for the large number of Scottish workers now employed in Luton, who are having great difficulty in securing suitable accommodation.

Mr. Heath: I am aware that there is a shortage of accommodation in Luton. My Department does not at present operate any hostels for transferred work people, and I am not contemplating opening a hostel at Luton.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the position? To give one example, there are five Aberdonians in one room, each paying £3 5s. a week for the privilege. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the mobility of labour is a great test of his policy on employment and that it would be very discouraging if many of these families have to go back to Aberdeen?

Mr. Heath: I agree that it would be most discouraging if many returned, but it would be a major operation to reopen or to establish hostels for this purpose in parts of the country in which workpeople are badly needed. The industrial hostels were closed in June, 1956, and I think that we should use our resources to try to induce industry to go to areas where there is higher unemployment.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is there not the usual reason for co-ordination between the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Duchy on this issue?

Mr. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on the occasion referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) I was precisely expressing the policy of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise out of this Question.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. These two Questions relate to precisely the same matter—the immigration of Aberdonians to England. My supplementary question a moment ago referred only to that issue, Sir. Is it out of order?

Mr. Speaker: The whole thing is out of order. The Minister cannot be asked to comment on a pronouncement by some unofficial Member in any circumstances. I hope that there is no need to pursue this matter further.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it will take some time for the Local Employment Bill, when it becomes an Act, to be successful in attracting industry to various areas? In the meantime, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is far better that workers should emigrate to places where jobs exist? Is there nothing further that my right hon. Friend can do in consultation with local authorities and with the firms concerned to approve accommodation?

Mr. Heath: I understand that the firm itself is doing its utmost to obtain better accommodation for those who require it. The fact is that it has been successful is a very large number of cases. In one or two cases, there have been grumbles about the lodgings provided, but we all know that difficulties can arise about that matter. I understand that it is also in


touch with local authorities. It is unfortunate that the firm has now ceased to recruit apart from the travel to work area.

Mr. Nabarro: Just what I said in the the first place.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of unemployed people who have accepted employment in England offered through employment exchanges in Scotland from February, 1959, to February, 1960.

Mr. Heath: Between 1st March, 1959, and 29th February, 1960, 2,328 people were placed in employment in England by Scottish employment exchanges.

Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have great sympathy with these people who have to leave Scotland to go to England and to be separated from their families for long periods? Is he further aware that this is the best of our skilled labour, and that it leaves those areas of heavy unemployment much less able to recruit industries because they have not the skilled craftsmen left to attract industry? Would it not be better, instead of coming to Scotland and explaining how successful his Department is in depopulating Scotland, for the Minister to take up the cudgels on behalf of Scotland with the President of the Board of Trade, attract some industry into Scotland and retain the labour we have in these areas of heavy unemployment?

Mr. Heath: The President of the Board of Trade is doing his utmost to induce industry to go to Scotland, and I am glad to say that his efforts are being successful, as the hon. Member will acknowledge. The number of 2,328 people who left Scotland to go to England is 1·3 per cent. of the total number of placings in my Department, which includes 177,000 in Scotland itself.

Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland we are losing by emigration 25,000 workers each year and that that is the number which the President of the Board of Trade estimates he will be able to recruit into industry over the next three years? In other words, we are making no headway with the problem, and the right hon. Gentleman is making it worse if he does not take up the cudgels on our behalf.

Mr. Heath: I have done all I can to support the President of the Board of Trade in inducing industry to go to Scotland, and I hope that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends will do the same.

Cotton Workers, Nelson and Colne

Mr. S. Silverman: asked the Minister of Labour what are the latest figures of unemployed cotton workers, corrected so far as possible for unregistered unemployed, in the constituency of Nelson and Colne; how many mills have given notice to close under the Cotton Industry Act by the end of March; and what is the estimated figure of unemployed cotton workers by 31st March, on the assumption that alternative work is not found by that date.

Mr. Heath: At 15th February, 1960, 525 people last employed on the spinning or weaving of cotton, linen and man made fibres were registered at employment exchanges and youth employment offices in Nelson and Colne which cover a wider area than the hon. Gentleman's constituency. In view of the terms of the compensation scheme, it is unlikely that any substantial number of unemployed people have failed to register. Forty-eight mills gave notice to close under the Act, 26 of which had closed by the end of February. Nine hundred and sixty people are employed at those mills due to close during March.

Mr. Silverman: With regard to nonregistration, does not the right hon. Gentleman know that there are a number of married women who work in these factories and who do not register? That was what I had in mind when I asked him to correct the figures for the unregistered unemployed. Moreover, is not the right hon. Gentleman in agreement with his officers in the neighbourhood that by 31st March, which is the operative date, 62 mills in this area ought to have closed, in pursuance of their notice under the Act, and that the number of workers involved and made redundant in the absence of alternative employment by that date will amount to about 2,500? What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do with these displaced persons? Are we to go to the High Commissioner for Refugees, or is any step being taken?

Mr. Heath: The last sentence is unworthy of the hon. Member. The point I wished to make is that unemployed workers displaced under the scheme will need to register in order to maintain eligibility for compensation payment, that presumably they will all want to receive their compensation payment, and that they will therefore register.

Mr. Silverman: They do not.

Mr. Heath: The indications are that they do and that they will want to do so. The hon. Member said that the number of mills being closed was 62. I think that in that calculation he has included those mills which are scrapping some machinery and modernising, but which are not closing. The number closing is 48. As to the question about future employment, new projects are expected to provide employment for 800 men and 450 women in the area.

Mr. Silverman: Does the Minister not know that, in spite of this anticipated increased unemployment by the end of March of nearly 1,000 persons—on his own figures—nevertheless this area has not been included in those areas to be given assistance under the Local Employment Bill? Is he aware that the President of the Board of Trade has said that the reasons for that exclusion are crystal clear? Will he not take steps to make the President of the Board of Trade aware of the figures, themselves understated, for which he makes himself responsible?

Mr. Heath: I am aware of that fact. The President of the Board of Trade is well aware of the situation in the area. Neither of us accepts the figures which the hon. Member produced in his supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Foxes (Destruction)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many foxes were destroyed by his pest control officers from Mount Mascal, Bexley, at Shortlands and on Chislehurst Common on 20th January; and how were they destroyed.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): Nine foxes were killed in the drive organised by my pests officers at Mount Mascal on 20th January, and 11 at Sundridge Park and Chislehurst Common on 18th January. All were shot.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some concern about the number of foxes to be seen in built-up areas of north-west Kent? Is the situation getting worse? Does he feel that his pest control officers can deal with it?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member is quite right. Foxes have been giving trouble on the outskirts of London, particularly in Kent and Surrey. My pest officers have given advice and they are helping to deal with the problem. I think that they are the people best able to deal with these animals humanely.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the total number of foxes destroyed by his pest control officers since 1st January, 1959, up to the latest convenient date.

Mr. John Hare: From 1st January, 1959, to 31st January, 1960, some 2,000 foxes were destroyed by my pests officers or killed in drives organised by them.

Mr. Dodds: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that information, may I ask whether it is not a matter of some surprise that the foxes could be killed so easily and without being chased by hounds, horses and people dressed in red jackets? Does he not think that this is the best way of dealing with them?

Mr. Hare: I think that the hon. Member has possibly got the figures out of proportion. I remind him that 21,000 foxes were killed between 1st January, 1959, and 31st January, this year, by hunts and so on.

Wood-Pigeons

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the result of this discussions about the possibility of introducing grants towards the cost of shooting wood-pigeons after 31st March.

Mr. John Hare: Consideration of this matter has not yet been completed, but I hope that I shall be able to make an announcement very soon.

Mr. Bossom: When he is having these discussions, will my right hon. Friend look into the possibility of having comprehensive pest clearance societies to cover rabbits, wood-pigeons and grey squirrels?

Mr. Hare: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I think it is better to wait until I make the announcement.

Sir A. Hard: Would my right hon. Friend also consider having a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether he can get Purchase Tax taken off cartridges, which is the best solution?

Mr. Hare: I am sure that the Chancellor will note what my hon. Friend has said.

Fowl Pest

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what compensation was paid in respect of slaughter of birds on account of fowl pest in each of the years 1955 to 1959, inclusive.

Mr. John Hare: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Willey: As all these figures add up to a considerable sum. may I ask what the right hon. Gentleman is doing to encourage more research and inquiry into other ways of reducing the effect of fowl pest?

Mr. Hare: There is another Question on that subject on the Paper this afternoon.

Following is the information:

COMPENSATION PAID FOR BIRDS SLAUGHTERED AS A RESULT OF OUTBREAKS OF FOWL PEST IN GREAT BRITAIN

Year
Amount £


1955
…
…
…
490,826


1956
…
…
…
1,371,710


1957
…
…
…
1,115,598


1958
…
…
…
1,161,414


1959
…
…
…
3,443,798






(Provisional)

Sir R. Nugent: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the present disquieting trends of

the disease, he will arrange for an independent inquiry into the methods of dealing with fowl pest in this country.

Mr. John Hare: The Secretary of State for Scotland and I have been studying this question for some time and we have come to the conclusion that we should appoint a Committee of Inquiry with the following terms of reference:
"To review the policy and arrangements for dealing with fowl pest in Great Britain, and to advise whether any changes should be made in the light of the growth of the poultry industry, present scientific knowledge and technical and administrative experience gained in recent years in this and other countries."
I will inform the House in due course of the membership of the Committee.

Sir R. Nugent: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to set up this committee will be very well received inside the farming community, in which there has been anxiety about both the sharp increase in the incidence of the disease and generally about the heavy cost to the taxpayer in compensation? Would my right hon. Friend say whether this Committee of Inquiry will have the same facilities to visit foreign countries in order to investigate the latest methods of dealing with the disease that the Gowers Committee had when dealing with foot-and-mouth disease?

Mr. Hare: Yes, I have said that I want the experience gained in recent years in this and other countries to be taken into consideration, and I should like this committee to have very much the same sort of powers as had Sir Ernest Gowers's Committee.

Mr. Hilton: While welcoming the decision to set up the Committee about fowl pest, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will also consider having consultations with the United States of America's authorities about imports of poultry to United States of America bases in this country which, it is claimed, carry this virus of fowl pest, in view of a recent report that the United States authorities would welcome such an inquiry?

Mr. Hare: That is, of course, an entirely different question—[HON. MEMBERS: "But very important."]—and the


hon. Member has mentioned the subject before. As he knows, we have no evidence to substantiate certain allegations which have been made that the disease has been spread from these American air bases. We have no evidence at all to support that, but this and other matters will come within the purview of this inquiry.

Bacon

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his attention has been called to the substantial fall which has occurred in the wholesale price of bacon in the last few weeks, with the result that British bacon curers are now faced with the alternative of passing on to pig producers the full effect of the fall in the bacon market and thus losing supplies, or of incurring substantial losses in order to pay the prices necessary to maintain an adequate supply of pigs in the face of the competition of the pork market; and when he expects to be in a position to ensure to the British bacon industry a more stable future.

Mr. John Hare: The price of bacon has fallen in recent weeks but the operation of the price guarantees shields the pig producer against the full impact of the fall. The increase in the guaranteed price for pigs and the adjustments to the guarantee arrangements, which were announced in the White Paper (Cmnd. 970) published on Thursday last, will, however, be of considerable assistance to the bacon industry as well as to producers.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley - Davenport: Will my right hon. Friend tell the British farmer straight out whether he wants him to go on producing bacon pigs or not, so that he knows where he is? Is he aware that the White Paper gives him very little encouragement? If bacon factories continue to go out of existence, will my right hon. Friend consider taking further remedial action?

Mr. Hare: My hon. and gallant Friend is not quite right. I have the White Paper before me, and I will quote from it:
For pigs the aims should be to secure a moderate increase in the breeding herd, but to avoid an increase to a level which would put an unreasonable burden on the taxpayer.

That is a perfectly reasonable statement of the intention. I have said several times that I would welcome this moderate increase. My hon. and gallant Friend asked about the bacon curers. They benefit substantially—indirectly— from the Government's guarantees to pig producers and, with the recent steps which we have taken to help, I think that they should be in a better position.

Mr. H. Hynd: As there is growing concern on both sides of the House about the large sums of public money being used as subsidies, will the Minister try to explain to his hon. and gallant Friend the virtues of unsubsidised private enterprise?

Mr. Hare: The hon. Gentleman is rather apt to get up and say he resents the sum of money which goes to subsidise the farming industry. He knows that I do not agree with him there. The farming industry plays a great part in the economy of our country and should be encouraged in the way we do encourage it.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the effect in the United Kingdom of the better control of foot-and-mouth disease in countries shipping meat to Great Britain and the proposals advanced by the Argentine Government to this end, he now proposes to strengthen his Department's veterinary staff in South America.

Mr. John Hare: Yes, Sir. The report made by my Chief Veterinary Officer after he had visited South America as consultant to the Food and Agriculture Organisation in 1958 called attention to the advantages that would accrue from more vigorous foot-and-mouth disease control in South American countries. An additional veterinary officer of my Department is going to South America very shortly to give further assistance to the authorities there.

Sir A. Hurd: While welcoming that appointment, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he will take the opportunity to impress on the Argentine Government and other Governments concerned in the Americas our very close interest in seeing that they really do get ahead now


with clearing their countries from foot-and-mouth disease, stage by stage, starting preferably with vaccination?

Mr. Hare: I am glad my hon. Friend has asked that question. I will certainly do that. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my hon. Friend for the very considerable personal interest he has taken in this matter.

F.A.O. Campaign (Freedom from Hunger)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the Food and Agriculture Organisation's freedom from hunger campaign.

Mr. John Hare: The Tenth Session of the Conference of the Food and Agricultural Organisation in November, 1959, unanimously approved a campaign designed to focus attention upon the continuing problem of hunger and malnutrition in a world with rapidly rising populations. This campaign will run for the five-year period 1960–65. I have recently discussed plans for the campaign with the Director-General of F.A.O. himself. I am now giving thought to ways and means of organising United Kingdom participation in it.

Mr. Willey: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether we can rest assured that the Government will give every encouragement to this campaign, which should have very beneficial effects not only in this country but throughout the world?

Mr. Hare: Yes, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall actively help in every way we can.

Agricultural Industry (Capital)

Colonel R. H. Glyn: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the increased efficiency of the agricultural industry in the year 1959–60 is due to the injection of new capital; how much new capital has been invested in farming by landlords, tenants and owner-occupiers in each of the last five years; and what is the total capital sum now invested in British agriculture.

Mr. John Hare: It is difficult to say what proportion of the increased effi-

ciency of the agricultural industry in 1959–60 can be attributed to the injection of new capital. New capital investment in agricultural equipment and buildings in the United Kingdom in each of the years 1955 to 1958 was £104 million, £95 million, £106 million, and £125 million, respectively, and is provisionally estimated for 1959 at £135 millon It is equally difficult to give a firm estimate of the total capital sum now invested in British agriculture.

Colonel Glyn: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the increasing efficiency of the industry is largely made possible by these substantial injections of new capital, and will he bear in mind that the so-called net income of the industry consists of reward of farmers' manual and managerial labour plus interest on this capital? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that, after allowing a reasonable return for farmers' managerial and manuel work, there is a sufficient income in the industry to provide an adequate return on this greatly increased capital?

Mr. Hare: These are matters which are taken into account in the Price Review. I think my hon. and gallant Friend is quite right to point out the very considerable sums of money involved in capital fixed equipment in the agricultural industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Potato Crop (Mechanical Lifting)

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as representing the Minister for Science, whether he will ask the Agricultural Research Council to investigate the detrimental effects of mechanical lift on the potato crop during the dry weather of 1959, so that full information can be made available to see whether any steps are desirable to prevent a recurrence of present serious losses.

Mr. John Hare: A pilot survey of the incidence of damage is being carried out on the 1959 crop by the Potato Marketing Board. The Agricultural Research Council is co-operating and account is being taken of damage to tubers and losses from the time of lifting in the field until retail sale. When the report of this


survey is completed consideration will be given to any aspects which call for further research.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

Expenditure

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what increase he is proposing in the ceiling for information expenditure next year.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the publication of the Civil Estimates.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement of the Foreign Secretary last week, though apparently premature, that there would be an increase of the ceiling is welcome on this side of the House? May I put this point to him? This year the B.B.C. has been forced to cut its transmissions to the Far East for lack of money. When this ceiling is increased next year it will be given money to restore those transmissions. Why must it lose the audience which it has built up over many years because of financial stringency this year? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that?

Dr. Hill: For the details, the hon. Gentleman will not have to await very long publication of the Civil Estimates. On the subject of the B.B.C., I would remind him that the allocation to the B.B.C. since 1956–57 has increased by £1 million, from £5½ million to £6½ million.

Mr. Mayhew: Why must the services be cut this year to be restored next year, with all that that involves?

Dr. Hill: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the Civil Estimates, which I am not going to anticipate.

Overseas Residence

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what opportunities he provides for British people preparing to reside abroad to train themselves in the social and political background of the countries concerned.

Dr. Hill: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs,

Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies, and the President of the Board of Trade, ensure that members of their staffs who are to serve abroad are as fully informed as possible before departure about the social and political background of the countries to which they are going.
The Departments of my right hon. Friends, and the Central Office of Information, readily supply to private people going abroad background information about the countries where they are to live. In addition, the Government are at present contributing £3,000 annually towards the expenses of Oversea Service, a non-Governmental organisation which runs courses for persons going abroad to prepare them for the conditions which they will find there.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that does not really cover the matter? Has his attention been drawn to the recent speech on the subject by Lord Chandos? Is he aware that the picture of Britain people get overseas is not made primarily by his information services but by British people who go overseas? Will he give every encouragement to such people, perhaps through the appropriate voluntary societies, to inform themselves about the religious and local customs, so as to make a contribution to good relations with this country?

Dr. Hill: I do most warmly agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Whatever part official services may play, it is a small part compared with the part which can be played by those who are going unofficially, for one purpose or another, overseas. This question does give me the opportunity of saying that the Departments concerned are very ready indeed to make available their facilities for giving information which such persons going overseas need.

Low Price Books

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many times the Advisory Committee on the Selection of Low Price Books for Overseas has met; and how many titles it has so far recommended for selection.

Dr. Hill: In full session once, with a second full session arranged shortly.


There have, of course, been very many informal consultations and discussions as well. They are now studying the numerous suggestions received, and a volume of evidence from overseas, on suitable titles. Their first recommendations on titles will follow this study.

Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is really very disappointing and very unsatisfactory progress? Is he aware that after the original announcement of this scheme in July last year we ought to have gone a great deal farther than that by this time? Is he aware that my information is that he is completely bogged down in advisory and Departmental committees? Will he get some action on this matter?

Dr. Hill: I am in no sense bogged down by advisory and Departmental committees. The Advisory Committee on the selection of titles has an immense task to do, particularly at the outset. It has received a wealth of advice from this country and, indeed, from all over the world and it is doing the important preliminary task of sifting that advice, a necessary process before it recommends titles.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the first titles in his scheme for low-priced books for overseas are expected to be available in overseas territories.

Dr. Hill: Towards the end of this year.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that he told the House in February that he expected that he would distribute 2 million titles by the end of this year? Is he now saying that there is no chance of achieving that object now?

Dr. Hill: I cannot foretell, but following the selection of titles there is very substantial work to be done in negotiations with the publishers, as the hon. Member will appreciate. I shall do everything to speed this work, but the preliminary work on the selection of titles is taking a great deal of time, and quite naturally so.

Mr. Thomson: On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

National Assistance Board (Title)

Mr. Emery: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will consider taking the necessary action to change the title of the National Assistance Board.

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what requests he has received to change the title of the National Assistance Board; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Suggestions are made from time to time that the title of the National Assistance Board should be changed though they vary widely as to the alternative. I do not think that it would be justifiable to introduce legislation for this purpose. I would remind my hon. Friends that the Board has removed the words "National Assistance" from the order-books on which its grants are cashed at the Post Office and I think this should largely achieve the object which my hon. Friends have in mind.

Mr. Emery: While thanking my right hon. Friend for removing the term from the order-books, may I ask whether he does not realise that there are still many people who, perhaps misguidedly, are too proud or often too self-relient to apply for assistance because it is called "assistance" and that these people are often the most worthy of help? Would my right hon. Friend not consider making some change which would bring this section of the community to apply for assistance?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the name of the paying body has really much influence on decisions of this kind. I am reinforced in that view by the fact that the National Assistance Board has paid the non-contributory old-age pension now for twelve years without, as far as I know, any of the difficulty to which my hon. Friend refers arising. More important, the National Assistance Board and its officers have won tributes from both sides of the House for the humane and civilised way in which they do their job. It would be quite wrong, and something of a farce,


to introduce legislation for the sole purpose of changing the nomenclature while leaving the functions unaffected.

Mr. Hall: While joining with my right hon. Friend in the tribute paid to the officers of the Board, may I point out that, however popular the initials N.A.B. might be in the House, the title "National Assistance Board" does repel people who are most worthy of being assisted? I have many examples in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter again?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend will recall that the words "National Assistance" were themselves introduced some years ago to get rid of the ill-impression made by the older phrase "Outdoor Relief". I have gone into this matter very closely. I am in great sympathy with the object which my hon. Friend has in mind, since, like him, I would not wish to see any person entitled to assistance denied it by false considerations of names, but, after reflecting on this, I do not think that the introduction of legislation just to change the name of the Board would help in the slightest.

War Pensions Committees

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will arrange for a doctor to sit on all local war pensions committees to guide the laymen on medical questions which arise, particularly with regard to the condition of 1914–18 ex-Service men.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir.

Mrs. Castle: Does the Minister realise that this suggestion was brought to my attention by a member of a local war pensions committee who informed me that it was very difficult for these committees to assess the claims of 1914–18 ex-Service men without having medical advice, particularly in cases of worsening condition? Is the Minister aware that these men are having a raw deal all round? Will he therefore reconsider this matter and also reconsider his refusal to extend to them the right to go to the Appeal Tribunal which is already enjoyed by the ex-Service men of the last war?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The last part of the hon. Lady's supplementary question

plainly does not arise on the Question. As to the earlier part, there are, as she knows, a number of doctors who in their own right serve as very valuable members of these committees, but it would be a hopeless proposition to put a doctor as such on a committee and expect him to be able to weigh and judge between competing experts over the whole field of medicine.

Retirement Pensions

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, in view of the increasing numbers of people drawing National Assistance, whether he will now agree to increase the retirement pension.

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will consider raising the retirement pension during 1960.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I told the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) in answer to his previous Question on this subject, we are keeping the rates of retirement pension and other benefits under review. As regards National Assistance, the scales of supplementary pensions were substantially increased last September to a higher standard than ever before, which is bound to affect the numbers being drawn now as compared with the numbers being drawn before this improvement was made.

Mr. Manuel: While recognising what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the larger numbers, because of the slight increase in the scale, may I ask whether he can indicate to the House what further proof he wants of actual poverty among old-age pensioners before he agrees to the scale?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is far too big a question to deal with by way of question and answer, but, as the hon. Member well knows, retirement pensioners now come from every section of the community and generalisations such as he made are, with respect, not very helpful in this matter. The hon. Member will appreciate that if we raise the real value of National Assistance, as we did last year for the first time since 1948, the automatic effect must be to make more people eligible to draw it. As I


said in reply to an earlier Question, we are anxious that all who are entitled to draw it should do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Middle East Airlines (Comet Aircraft)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he has given his approval to the guarantees given by the British Overseas Airways Corporation in respect of the instalment payments on the purchase of five Comet airliners by Middle East Airlines.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I have now approved the proposal of British Overseas Airways Corporation for guaranteeing the purchase of four Comets by Middle East Airlines.

Mr. Strauss: Does that mean that there is general Government approval? According to Press comments, the Minister has approved but the Treasury so far has not approved. Can the right hon. Gentleman make any comment about that?

Mr. Sandys: I naturally would not give my approval without consulting my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir A. V. Harvey: While approving this deal, may I ask why a transaction such as this cannot be dealt with by such an organisation as the Export Credits Guarantee Corporation, which was set up for exports?

Mr. Sandys: This whole matter has been somewhat complicated by the fact that the proposal to which I referred in reply to the Question does not stand alone. It is part of a wider rearrangement of the commercial relations between B.O.A.C. and the Middle East Airlines.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Building Programme

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Health if he will now make a detailed statement giving dates and costs of the Government programme for building hospitals, and the steps already taken to implement it.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my statements about the hospital building programme on 16th November, 1959, and 29th February, 1960, in reply to Questions by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel). Detailed information about hospital boards' estimates of capital expenditure on individual projects costing over £100,000 is set out in Appendix A to the Civil Estimates, Class V, Vote 5, and further information is published in the Annual Reports of the Ministry.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that I am not asking about past programmes but about present programmes? In addition, can he say how many of these hospitals will be located in Scotland?

Mr. Walker-Smith: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, may I say that I realise that? The information which the hon. and learned Member will find in the answers to which I have referred him relates to the future programme. As to the second part of his supplementary question, I am not the Minister of Health for Scotland.

Dr. Summerskill: What progress has been achieved in the programme which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has already given us?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Very fine progress indeed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Poliomyelitis Vaccination

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Minister of Health why he gave official Press publicity to the availability of poliomyelitis vaccination for persons up to the age of 40 years before making the necessary arrangements for this service to be rendered.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Detailed circulars were issued to the local health authorities and executive councils on the same day as the extension of the poliomyelitis scheme was announced in the House and notified to the Press.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Minister aware that in West Willesden this service was not available until three weeks after the day


of his broadcast? In view of the number of times in recent years when the Ministry of Health has been ham-fisted in the way in which it has co-ordinated its services with the medical profession, may I ask whether the Minister will overhaul his Department's views on this matter?

Mr. Walker-Smith: There is some misunderstanding here. I made no broadcast on this occasion on this matter. I have had no complaints from Middlesex County Council, which is the local health authority responsible for Willesden, and, as far as I am aware, no local health authority, no general practitioner and no member of the public has suffered any inconvenience at all in this matter.

Mr. Pavitt: I beg to give notice that I should like to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS TO MEETINGS) BILL (INSTRUCTION)

Mr. Speaker: This time might be the least inconvenient to the House for me to rule upon a point raised last Thursday by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) on the Motion relating to the Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill standing in the name of the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
The Minister's Motion anticipates the hon. Member's Motion for 17th May asking for leave to bring in a Bill, and the hon. Member submitted that the Minister's Motion was out of order as infringing the rule against anticipation. I have given the point careful consideration and I do not think that the hon. Member's contention is well founded.
Our rule against anticipation, as set out in the current edition of Erskine May, does not prohibit all anticipation, but only anticipation by a form of proceeding less effective than that which it anticipates. I do not think that an Instruction to a Standing Committee to which a Bill has been committed is a less effective proceeding than a Motion asking for leave to bring in a Bill.
The hon. Member asked me to read a Ruling by Mr. Speaker Denison, which refused to allow a Motion for leave to bring in a Bill to be anticipated, and I have done so. It is no exception to the rule. In that instance, the anticipating Motion was a Motion seeking only an expression of opinion by the House, that is to say, a form of proceeding clearly less effective than a Motion asking leave to bring in a Bill.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) asked me to consider the Minister's Motion in connection with the scope of the Bill. I have accordingly considered whether the proposed Instruction is in itself inadmissible, either as being superfluous, or, on the other hand, as attempting to embody in the Bill provisions outside its scope and declared intention. In my view, it is a matter of doubt whether, without an Instruction, the Committee would be able to entertain the relevant provisions, and I think that the object with which the Instruction is concerned is cognate to the general purposes of the Bill.
Accordingly, I hold that the Instruction is admissible.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock. —[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1959–60; MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60; ARMY ESTIMATES, 1960–61 AND ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60; ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATE, 1960–61 AND ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60; WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1960–61

CIVIL CLASS II

VOTE 5. COMMONWEALTH SERVICES

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for sundry Commonwealth services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and certain grants in aid; the salaries and expenses of Pensions Appeal Tribunals in the Republic of Ireland; a grant' to the Republic of Ireland in respect of compensation to transferred officers; and certain expenditure in connection with former Burma services.

VOTE 5. COMMONWEALTH SERVICES

Resolved,
That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for sundry Commonwealth services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and certain grants in aid; the salaries and expenses of Pensions Appeal Tribunals in the Republic of Ireland; a grant to the Republic of Ireland in respect of compensation to transferred officers; and certain expenditure in connection with former Burma services.

VOTE 8. COLONIAL SERVICES

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day

of March, 1960, for sundry Colonial Services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and grants in aid; certain expenditure in connection with the liabilities of the former Government of Palestine; certain expenditure in connection with and grants in aid to Cyprus; and certain non-effective services.

VOTE 8. COLONIAL SERVICES

Resolved,
That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for sundry Colonial Services, including subscriptions to certain international organisations and grants in aid; certain expenditure in connection with the liabilities of the former Government of Palestine; certain expenditure in connection with and grants in aid to Cyprus; and certain non-effective services.

VOTE 9. DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE (COLONIES, ETC.)

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,400,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, in respect of schemes made under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act for the development of the resources of colonies, protectorates, protected states and trust territories, and the welfare of their peoples.

VOTE 10. DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE (FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND, AND SOUTH AFRICAN HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES)

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £108,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, in respect of schemes made under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act for the development of the resources of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and of the South African High Commission Territories, and the welfare of their peoples.

CLASS VIII

Orders of the Day — Vote 2. Agricultural and Food Grants and Subsidies

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,280,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of


food production and the improvement of agriculture; for payments and services in implementation of agricultural price guarantees; and for certain other services including a payment to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland.

3.35 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): This Vote covers the agricultural and food grants and subsidies, both the production grants and the price guarantees. It is always difficult to foresee exactly what will be required for this Vote a year ahead, and experience varies considerably from year to year. In any case, the Estimate has to be prepared before the outcome of the Annual Review can be known, and this year there are a number of items for which we need more money and a number on which there are offsetting savings.
On balance, we need an additional amount of about £7,300,000, but this is on an original Estimate of about £218 million. This is the net difference between excess requirements of about £16,600,000 on those items where the original Estimate provision is not enough, and a saving of about £9,300,000 on other items. The net requirement of about £7 million consists of a net £2 million for the production grants and a net £5 million for the price guarantees.
The production grants are the A subheads of the Vote and we need more money for seven items, in all about £4,100,000, and against this we have savings of about £2 million. The three largest production grant requirements are £1 million for the fertiliser subsidy, just over £1 million for the lime subsidy and £900,000 for the attested herd bonus given to encourage the eradication of tuberculosis from our cattle.
We have this year an exceptionally high use by farmers of both fertilisers and lime. This is, of course, a very good thing for the fertility of our land. It is largely due to exceptionally favourable weather conditions, particularly for liming. It may also be due in part to the stimulus to greater use caused by price reductions for most fertilisers which the manufacturers made last July. Fertiliser consumption is likely to be a record, and lime deliveries are likely to exceed 7 million tons as against an average of 6·2 million tons in the three previous years—a very creditable performance in both cases.
The increased requirement for the attested herd bonus is because the number of herds joining the attested herds scheme has exceeded our expectations. About 85 per cent. of the 2½ million cattle in the final free testing areas under the tuberculosis eradication scheme are now in attested herds, as against a figure of 75 per cent., on which we based our original Estimate. I am sure that everyone in the Committee will agree that this, too, is a very welcome development. Particularly in the final stages of the eradication scheme, we anticipated that a very substantial number of herds would have to be tested compulsorily. We have got this higher percentage in the attested herds and it is something about which we should all be glad.
Those are the main items on Subhead A. I do not propose to comment in detail on the four smaller items of field drainage, calf subsidy, hill cattle subsidy and silo subsidy. My right hon. Friend will be pleased to deal with any points raised by hon. Members when he winds up the debate.
If we turn now to Subhead B for the price guarantees, we have additional requirements of about £12,400,000, but against this we have offset savings of about £7,400,000, giving a net additional requirement of about £5 million. The additional requirements are mainly for cereals, nearly £8 million, and eggs, just over £4 million.
In the case of cereals, we are concerned in each financial year with the final payments on one year's crop and the initial payments on the next year's crop. On this occasion we are concerned, therefore, with the final payments on the 1958 crop and the initial payments on the 1959 crop. The additional provision of nearly £8 million required consists of about £5 million on barley, about £500,000 on oats and about £2½ million on wheat.
On barley, the additional payments arise entirely for the 1959 crop. Expenditure on the 1958 crop was, in fact, rather less than expected, and the 1959 barley acreage, at 2,800,000 acres, has proved to be about 200,000 acres greater than forecast and the level of market prices has been lower than forecast. We have, therefore, had both to pay on a larger acreage and to make a higher rate of advance payment on this crop than


forecast. I would point out that the payment here is on an acreage basis as opposed to a tonnage basis for wheat.
On wheat, the increase is due to the end-of-season wheat prices for the 1958 crop being about £1 a ton lower than forecast and to a higher rate of deliveries off farms from the exceptionally good 1959 crop in the earlier months of the crop year—that is, particularly from July to November—than forecast. It allows also for the reduction of 6d. a cwt. in the guaranteed price for wheat made after the 1959 annual review. I would remind the Committee that all my references to changes in the Annual Price Review must be related to last year's Price Review and not to the price review which has just occurred.
For eggs, the additional £4 million is the net result of a number of factors working in both directions. The market price has been running at about 5d. per dozen lower than the estimate on which the flat-rate subsidy was based. Under the profit and loss sharing arrangements which have up to now operated with the Egg Marketing Board, producers bear the loss on the first 2d. a dozen by which the market price falls below the estimate and the Government bear nine-tenths of such loss in excess of the first 2d. That is known as the "2d. band" which applies to the profit and loss sharing arrangements; it has been changed in the Annual Price Review which has just taken place.
The Government's share of the loss on the fall in market prices as compared with the estimate comes to nearly £8 million. About half of this was, however, offset by other factors. These were, first, that the guaranteed price was itself reduced by 1d. a dozen following the 1959 Annual Review, which was not allowed for in the estimate, and, secondly, that the prices of feeding stuffs fell during the year and, therefore, automatically reduced the Exchequer liability in accordance with the arrangement whereby the guaranteed price is adjusted for changes in feed prices.
There are certain other smaller items into which I do not propose to go in detail, but, my right hon. Friend will, of course, be only too ready to deal with points raised relating to them.
The Committee will see that these estimates are affected by many complex factors, the effect of which is always

extremely hard to predict. The net result has been to increase the cost of agricultural support this year, so far as as the Ministry's Vote is concerned, by some 3½ per cent. beyond what we had thought it might turn out to be. I think that, with such variables as we have had to contend with, that is not a bad outcome from the estimates which had to be made. The expenditure is a necessary part of our support to agriculture if we are to maintain a sound and efficient industry. It is the firm intention of the Government to continue to do that in future as has been done in the past. I ask the Committee accordingly to approve the Supplementary Estimate of £7,280,500.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: In view of the last remarks of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in his concise and complacent statement, I must remind him that on Thursday I received the following telegram:
President N.F.U. has today telegraphed Minister of Agriculture as follows. National Farmers' Union Council emphatically endorsed refusal to agree Government price review determination which shows clear intention to restrict home agricultural production, make way for still more imported foodstuffs and deny the British farmer a proper share of the results of his rising efficiency

The Chairman: I am not clear what that has to do with the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Willey: It arises. Sir Gordon, only in view of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's concluding remarks about the state of the industry. I do not wish to pursue the matter further, but I thought it proper to indicate that there is a difference of view beween the Government and the farmers.
Turning to the Supplementary Estimate, I should like to deal, first, with cereals. Here we are considering a miscalculation by the Government amounting to £8 million, something which merits consideration. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given reasons—we appreciate them—for the difficulties about making these calculations beforehand. I am in some difficulty, because the Minister has published further figures. We have now the subsidy figures as set out in the White Paper dealing with this year's Annual Price Review. They apparently show a further increase in the


subsidy, the figure being just over £58 million. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has not given any explanation of that, but it certainly makes it very difficult for us to consider the figures which are before us.
The same consideration applies to other guaranteed price commodities which I do not wish to discuss this afternoon. For instance, we do not know what the true position is today about fat stock, but, looking at the Annual Review White Paper, it seems to me quite out of accord with the position we are discussing under the present Supplementary Estimate. As the Estimate was prepared only a month or so ago, it seems that this, at any rate, calls for some explanation from the Government.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that this additional subsidy is required because of the general fall in market prices. I would merely say that, of course, the Government's policy itself has affected market prices. I do not wish to discuss pigs this afternoon, but, obviously, the Government's pig policy reflects itself in feedingstuff prices.
The position about wheat is that over the last three years there has been a reduction in the guaranteed price—it is not only so for the year that we are considering—afforded to the producers for wheat. It is a reduction of 2s. 2d. per cwt. However, at the same time, we are considering this afternoon an increase in the subsidy, and we face a substantial subsidy of over £20 million. What I cannot understand—this obviously affects the taxpayers, who provide the money—is why these continuing decreases have not reflected themselves in the retail prices of flour and confectionery.
I have mentioned previously that there is a fairly well-known conversion factor. All other things being equal, the price of a 1¾lb. loaf ought to be 1 ½d. less than it was three years ago; but this is not so. As the taxpayers are being required to provide £20 million, I think that we are entitled to ask the Government why this is not so.
So long as we get substantial price support from the taxpayer we must pay attention to retail prices. This confirms the impression that many of us have, on both sides of the Committee, that distribution costs have increased enormously

in the last few years. When this is a matter directly affecting the taxpayer and the producer—who has to face successively decreasing prices—there is a burden upon the Government to satisfy the Committee that this Treasury subvention is being used to aid the producer and is not being lost in distributive channels.
I turn now from cereals to eggs, a commodity we almost invariably discuss when we consider Supplementary Estimates. Here we have a substantial subsidy of £36½ million. This in itself demands an explanation from the Government, because we remember that the noble Lord, Viscount Tenby, as he now is, abolished this subsidy When he was Minister of Food. What is the purpose of the subsidy? What change of policy has there been since it was abolished? We have here a very substantial subsidy and an appreciable and substantial increase in it in this Estimate. Here again, as in the case of wheat, we have had three successive price reductions. It would be out of order to discuss the position for the coming year, but we know that there is to be a further reduction.
In 1957, we had a reduction of l¾d. a dozen. The purpose was to reduce output. Instead, we got increased output. In 1958, there was another reduction of l¾d. a dozen. What for? The purpose was to stop expansion of output, but what actually happened? We had a still greater increase of output. In the year we are discussing, we had a reduction of 1d. a dozen. Again, the purpose was, to quote the Government's own words in the White Paper, that the
production of eggs should be reduced.
What has happened? We have had a further substantial increase in production. This surely demands some explanation. Why has the Parliamentary Secretary not dealt with it? Why have we not had a confession of failure or alteration of purpose by the Government?
We are discussing an additional £4 million by way of subsidy, bringing the total to the very substantial amount of £36½ million. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), when he was articulate, said that this was not a policy, but a calculation. He cannot join in our discussion today. We want to know what the policy is


behind it. I understood that the main purpose of the guarantees, and the Treasury support of those guarantees, was to provide the producer with confidence, because we all recognise that, in farming, confidence is the essence of efficiency, but the egg producer has faced four reductions over four years as a deliberate matter of Government policy. There has not been any stability of price, for the White Paper refers to
…unduly large and erratic fluctuations in producers' prices …
Again, as we did in the case of wheat, we should look at the consumer. Has this benefited him? Not as a matter of policy, though he did enjoy some advantage in the second half of last year.

Mr. Godber: The consumer is benefiting a lot more than was forecast by hon. Members opposite when eggs were derationed.

Mr. Willey: I have the figures here, so we will see how far he has benefited. In March, 1957, the retail prices per dozen were between 2s. 6d. and 3s. In 1958, 1959 and in 1960 they were between 3s. 3d. and 3s. 6d. We know that it is not the purpose of the Egg Marketing Board to allow retail prices to dip. It is trying its hardest to maintain them. Again, we cannot say that the consumer has benefited either from the reduction in the producer prices or from the maintenance of this rate of subsidy
I would have thought that, in view of the result of the Government's policy, somebody would have sufficient intelligence on the Government Front Bench seriously to look at all this. Obviously, something is happening. It is no good the Government going on saying in every Price Review White Paper that they intend to take effective steps to ensure a reduction in production, when the reverse actually occurs. It is for the Government to justify the subsidy in previous years. It has either been unrealistically high and the successive price reductions have not had the effect they calculated, or the pattern of output has changed.
It is well known that there are new types of production in egg production. We have producers depending almost entirely on imported feeding stuffs, and we have types of production practically divorced from the land. Here we have

a very short supply service. The Government have a duty to consider this, and to consider what is the main policy of this subsidy and who is benefiting most from it.
It is very disturbing that under this present Vote we cannot discuss savings, but we are aware of the fact that the Government have spent £1 million less on the Small Farmer Scheme than it budgeted. It is incumbent on the Government to look at the expenditure of this money and ensure that it is used for the benefit of the producers for whom it was really intended. As I have said of wheat and flour, we should make absolutely sure that when a subsidy of this size is involved, it is the producers who get the benefit.
The dilemma is that the Government have said for three years, and are saying it again, that they do not intend the producer to get any benefits, because they wish him to reduce production. In the circumstances, I can only assume that the people who benefit are, again, mainly the distributors. There is some confirmation of this from the action taken by the Egg Marketing Board, which has gone into packing. Time after time the Minister and his predecessors have been stigmatised by the Comptroller and Auditor General about the administration of this subsidy. Nothing has been done.
We await a further report from the Comptroller and Auditor General. We have had no explanation either of the purposes or of the effective administration of the subsidy. I was disappointed with the hon. Gentleman's reply, because he failed to deal with these matters, which must disturb everyone who is determined to provide a sound basis for British agricultural production.
I now turn to the question of production grants, in respect of which I find the same disturbing trend. Taking the Price Review as a guide, we find that they are now running at about £95 million a year, those within the present Vote accounting for over £67 million. The Government are now asking for an increase of £4 million by way of the Supplementary Estimate, and I would ask them again how much further these production grants are going.
I do not think that anyone challenges the principle of production grants for agriculture—

Major H. Legge-Bourke: I do.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: So do I.

Mr. Willey: —except the hon. Member for Dorset South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). They apparently oppose the grants in principle, which is a tenable view.
Nevertheless, they will probably agree that when these subsidies reach a figure of nearly £100 million a year they necessarily have an impact on the price incentive provided for the commodities in the Price Review. These moneys come out of the Price Review, and we cannot give away £100 million in this way without blunting the price incentive.
The Minister may say that that is his policy. That means that he wants a stagnant agriculture. But if that is his policy, this is a subterfuge. I should have thought that these production grants had reached such a level that we ought to see what return we are getting for them. The right hon. Gentleman has no idea of the return, because no analysis has yet been made. I know that this is very attractive to the Treasury, which is very anxious about Treasury support being given to individual commodities affected by market price levels, but we are concerned with getting the best return for the money we are putting into agriculture, and I hope that this debate will persuade the Government to try to see that we get it.
I now turn to the question of the fertiliser grant. We are providing an extra £2 million this year in respect of fertilisers and lime, and we are considering a total of £40 million to support fertiliser and lime prices. Not only is this a very substantial subsidy; it has been increased considerably over the past few years. In 1951–52, it was running at £8 million, and when we last discussed fertilisers on this Vote, two years ago, it had risen £34 million. Since then it has been increased by another £6 million. The lime subsidy provides between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent. of the price and the fertilisers subsidy about 45 per cent. of the price. Everyone would concede the general argument that the purpose of the subsidy, namely, to encourage the greater use of fertilisers, is a good one.
We are concerned with three points in this connection. First, we want to know whether such a purpose requires the expenditure of £40 million; secondly, whether there are other ways in which the money might be put to better use; and, thirdly, whether the money is serving its purpose. As I said two years ago, I have very grave doubts in this matter. I then said that the British farmer was lagging behind most of the West European farmers in the use of fertilisers, and also in respect of the rate of increase in their use. I have been pursuing my inquiries to bring my figures up to date, and I find that that position still holds good. I will not redeploy the figures, but I will give a simple comparison between this country and West Germany, which subsidises fertilisers as we do, but more modestly. The most recent available O.E.E.C. figures show that West Germany uses nearly twice as much nitrogen and more than twice as much potash as we do, and 40 per cent. more phosphates. These are comparable figures, relating to a two-year period.
In this period, the use of nitrogen in West Germany has increased by six times as much as it has in this country, and the use of potash by more than three times, and whereas the use of phosphates has decreased in this country it has increased by 25 per cent. in West Germany. We can rightly say that the position is not satisfactory, and before we agree to such an increase as this we are entitled to be satisfied.
We now have the Monopolies Commission Report on the supply of chemical fertilisers. We cannot debate the Report, but it shows that the position is unsatisfactory, in that we have tariff-protected and subsidised monopolies. In the case of nitrogen it is true that I.C.I, appears not to have been operating against the public interest, but the question about which we are most interested —the question of a restrictive price agreement—was excluded from the Commission's consideration. Having read the Report, my impression is that nitrogen production in this country has been unenterprising, in spite of the support of the subsidy.
In reference to Fisons, the Report says:
We think the company mistaken in believing that it is entitled to use its strength, due


largely to the degree of monopoly it enjoys in a protected and subsidised market, in order to earn profits at the high rate of recent years for the express purpose of financing its further overall expansion. We regard the fixing of prices at a level which produces such profits as a 'thing done' by Fisons as a result of its monopoly position which operates and may be expected to operate against the public interest.
This is affecting fertilisers, which we are subsidising to a substantial extent.
In passing, I wish to deal with the argument which Fisons adduce in reply. The form says that it is quite true that it is producing fertilisers which are heavily subsidised by the taxpayer and that it makes a profit of 20 per cent. on historic cost. That is necessary because it has to attract capital into the industry to expand. But to expand in what? To expand in the production of nitrogen. So we have the use of money in one monopoly to break the monopoly of another producer.
As I say, it has been in nitrogen. What is it now to be? In contraceptives. Although the firm failed in its take-over bid for B.D.H., it is seeking other fields in which to expand production. As this is largely financed by the British taxpayer, I think that we have to take an interest in these things.
I felt some sympathy for the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) who, when we were discussing the Price Review the other day, said that rather than increase the subsidy why not consider a reduction in the profits of the manufacturers. That is a point which I have repeatedly argued regarding fertilisers. It is borne out by the Report of the Monopolies Commission, which states, in the case of one monopoly, at any rate, that the profits were too high.
To come back to the Vote we are discussing, it means that before we can agree to the Government's request for another £1 million for fertilisers we should ask why they have not instituted a costing procedure for fertilisers. We have a costing procedure for lime, so why not have one for fertilisers?
The answer is obvious. In the case of fertilisers we are dealing with a very different type of producer, with big monopoly producers, and the Government cannot stand up to them as they can to the smaller lime producers. This point of view is not only borne out by the Report of the Monopolies Commis-

sion. It is equally apparent in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Civil Appropriation Accounts. He questioned the Minister, as I did a couple of years ago, on this matter, and, in reply, it was stated that the Minister informed him that in the absence of price control they had insufficient information about production and distribution costs to judge whether fertiliser prices were fair and reasonable. And of course, like us, they were awaiting the Report of the Monopolies Commission.
If we are providing between 30 per cent. and 45 per cent.—in one case, actually over 50 per cent.—of the price, we are entitled to be absolutely sure that the price is fair and reasonable. If we have a subsidy which, in a few years, has increased from £8 million to £40 million, we are entitled to such an assurance. I hope that hon. Members opposite will join us in harrying the Government until we get satisfaction about this matter. We are to get some legislative action in due course. I hope that it will be sufficient to allow for a costing inquiry.
I apologise for going rather wide on some of the matters we are discussing. The Government, because it happens to have been convenient to the Treasury, have been lackadaisical in their consideration of production grants. They have not satisfied us that they have even sufficient information to know that this is the best form in which to provide aid. It is quite clear, at least regarding the commodities that we are now discussing, that the Government have no idea what purpose is served by these subsidies. We are getting the worst of both worlds. We have a high and an increasing rate of subsidy, producer prices are falling and producers are disturbed, and therefore, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say, there is a lessening of drive and efficiency within the industry. On the other hand, there is no benefit to the taxpayer, as a consumer, through retail prices.
I know that the Minister and the President of the Board of Trade are considering the question of fertilisers, but here we are concerned not only with the question of monopolies, but also the question of tariff protected subsidised monopolies. We are concerned with the expenditure of a considerable amount of public money. We wish to be sure that the


benefit of this expenditure is going to the farmers, because in a real sense it is their money. The fact that these high rates of profit have been obtained is disturbing, and there is a burden on the Government to see that these matters are put right. I hope that we shall have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman to that effect.

4.16 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member for Sunder-land, North (Mr. Willey) interlarded quite a good speech with a certain amount of political slating which was unsuited to the intimate atmosphere of a Committee considering Supplementary Estimates and which does not come very well from the Labour Party in its present state of dissolution.
I also think that the hon. Gentleman took far too long to make his speech. These debates on Supplementary Estimates ought to be conducted rapidly, with many hon. Members taking part and with rapid answers by the Minister, after which we should proceed to the next Vote. That being the case, I shall not keep the Committee for more than three or four minutes.
As hon. Members know, I have a financial interest in these debates. Therefore, the Committee may find that I am repeating that sort of argument as each successive Vote passes. On the question of Supplementary Estimates for agriculture, fisheries and food and the grants and subsidies, I am principally concerned with eggs. I have an Amendment on the Order Paper to reduce Subhead B.2 by £1,000. Rather mysteriously, the Amendment has been transferred to the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt) who, I suppose, does not wish to take up a position on this matter, and, less seriously, it has not been selected for discussion. But there is no harm in referring to it.
I am very unhappy about the question of eggs. I am not expert in these matters, nor, I think, are my constituents. But we do not understand why there should be wild scares reported in the newspapers. First, there is a glut of eggs and then there is a shortage. In the view of my constituents, it is the pig problem magnified a thousand times. Then, at the end of the year,

they read that £4 million has had to be called into play to satisfy the requirements of the Egg Marketing Board. For that matter, I do not think that they are very happy about the Egg Marketing Board, either. It is a producer-controlled organisation which does not seem to go well with our market economy. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North pointed out that the egg subsidy had been abolished and has now been resuscitated for the producer-controlled Marketing Board to regulate the supply.
Perhaps one cannot go deeply into the policy behind the Supplementary Estimate. The total is very great. Year by year we are called on to vote another few million pounds to satisfy the policy. I do not think that the policy is a very good one. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North talked for quite a time about the policy, but I do not think that it is in order to go so far as he went; and I do not propose to develop the question of policy, because I do not think that it would be in order to do so. It seems to me that we are reaching the stage where the taxpayers are being called on to pay very large sums of money for the subsidisation of agriculture.
I was challenged about my views when I took up a position with respect to Board of Trade assistance to industry. I think, equally, that now we have a lavish and affluent society many people could afford to pay higher prices for their food. If agriculture were protected by tariff supports, we could still have a protective screen thrown round British agriculture, it could still thrive and prosper, but the country would have to pay more for the privilege.
We pay the lowest prices for food of any country in the world in relation to the indices of the cost of living in those respective countries. I think that the time has come to alter the whole principle under which subsidies are given to agriculture, to protect agriculture at the ports, but to stop these new subsidies coming on to the backs of the taxpayers and to allow an affluent economy of highly prosperous people in all walks of life—even in agriculture, where sometimes, £10, £15, £20 and £30 a week is coming into an agricultural cottage, and excellent it is— to pay proper prices, and world prices, for their food.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I have to declare a financial interest in this business, but I will try to take up as short a time as possible. I was interested in the remarks that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) made about the provision of tariffs instead of subsidies.
I do not know of any agricultural cottage where £20 to £30 a week is coming in in wages, but perhaps the noble Lord can tell me where these cottages are to be found. These people live individually, not collectively.
I want to refer to the fertiliser subsidy and the increase of £2 million—£1 million on lime and £1 million on fertilisers. I wonder whether it might not be possible to have a large saving not of the percentage on total, but still large, if there were a better method of paying the subsidy. Surely the Minister could find some other way for these individual payments. After all, between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. comes from two firms and from them for their raw material to the smaller firms. Surely, if the subsidies were paid at the source it would save much administrative work and money as well.
What worries me a little is why—and I have no reason to doubt the Report of the Monopolies Commission—if they charge so much, so many farmers bought this fertiliser from Fisons when I.C.I. was not accused of making the same high profits and several smaller firms as well? I wonder why so many of my fellow farmers gave this money to Fisons, which is now burning a hole in pockets for take-over bids. I feel that there must have been a lot of credit given. Credit seems to be the one thing that farmers go to merchants for rather than elsewhere. I think that that is a bad thing.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the amount of fertiliser and lime being used was a good thing. The subsidy was for the purpose of seeing that they were used and that their use was a credit to the farmers. What is it being used for? It is going on to grass to produce more livestock and it is going on to cereals to produce more pigs and eggs. These are the products that require the most subsidy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) rightly

said the farmer wants these fertilisers to produce more. Yet the whole trend of what the Minister has been saying is to reduce production. To increase the fertiliser subsidy obviously produces more livestock, and with more fertiliser going into the ground and more lime, production is bound to increase. I should have thought that it was a good thing for the country.
The silo subsidy is increased. The administration of this is, I think, wrong. I would ask the Minister to consider whether this could not be incorporated into the Farm Improvement Scheme and thus save a lot of administrative cost. I wonder whether the Minister has ever thought whether it is a good thing to pay Northern Ireland not only a silo subsidy, tout a subsidy for silage which we do not get in this country.
On the question of cereals, if accounting is important, why cannot the Minister save himself a lot of trouble by paying next year's first payment and the balance of the year before to make up his Estimate and then carrying it on to the following year? This would save Mm coming to the House of Commons and asking for a Supplementary Estimate.
I do not understand why there should be £1 million subsidy for potatoes, as mentioned in the White Paper, and only £500,000 mentioned in the Supplementary Estimates. As I said to the Minister last week, no farmer has yet received any subsidy for potatoes, yet potatoes have been sold far below the guaranteed prices, practically the whole season. His answer to that was that the Government were looking at the scheme, which means that it will be 1962 before any farmer gets the benefit of the potato subsidy.
Can the Minister also explain the £200,000 for private-owned potato transport facilities in Northern Ireland? As a seed producer in Scotland, I think that if Northern Ireland producers are to get this assistance, Scotland should also come into the picture.

4.27 p.m.

Sir Anthony Hurd: I have to declare a personal interest in two matters—egg and fertilisers. I happen to be a fairly large egg producer and a director of an egg producers' packing station.
I do not disagree with much that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, except that he is obviously wrong in his analysis of the effects of the egg subsidy. In my judgment—he probably will not agree with me—the greater part of the benefit of the subsidy is going to the consumers. I judge that by reason of the fact that our market prices are so low now that they do not attract the Danes or the Dutch to send here as they can do better for themselves in Belgium and West Germany.
The subsidy is expensive and has given cover for increased home production year after year, so that we now fill almost 100 per cent. of the home market at certain times of the year and over supply the market with shell eggs. Consumption has not quite kept pace, but it will. I should like to put it to the Committee that a major part of the benefit goes to the consumer. I do not grudge it, but I think that we should face that fact. The Minister has already told us, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North referred to it, that price arrangements between the Egg Marketing Board and the Government are now to be altered so that we can get a greater measure of stability for the producer. That is desirable.
I am a director of Fisons Fertilisers, Limited, and I should like to make one or two points briefly. I should like to give a rather better balanced conclusion than the hon. Member for Sunderland, North was able to give on the Monopolies Commission Report. To quote the last paragraph of its Report, on page 704, the Commission sums up to its satisfaction its conclusions:
In the matter of Fisons' pricing policy and the level of profits resulting from it, we do not believe that the company has acted in deliberate disregard of the public interest. We recommend that Fisons should adjust its pricing policy to yield a lower level of profit than has been achieved in recent years, and we believe that the company can be relied on to carry out this recommendation in the light of our Report.
It did not need the Report of the Monopolies Commission to make Fisons decide on that course. There have been price reductions while the Report of the Commission was being prepared. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister will agree that last year the

manufacturers of fertilisers, taken together, reduced their prices by £2,600,000.
That was a contribution to saving in costs in agriculture. I hope that with the new resources made available—for instance, the nitrogen factory mentioned by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, which cost £4 million—we shall see prices reduced still further. That surely is in line with the policy of the Government, to facilitate the reduction of production costs in this country and make our agriculture more competitive. That is the theme underlying Government policy today. The greater use of fertilisers is contributing to that.
I do not grudge this extra subsidy given to farmers and not to the makers of fertilisers. No doubt it has encouraged more of those farmers who are not always as keen businessmen as they might be to use more fertilisers. Thereby, it has helped to get this record figure of 68 per cent. increase of net output in agriculture compared with pre-war. That, again, is a help to the Minister's policy of saving on production costs. If we get higher yields of grain, better use of grass and more fertility into the soil we shall get better output. Assuming that overheads are the same, we get more economical production and a saving of costs.
This fertiliser subsidy has done what was intended. Technical advice has persuaded and induced farmers to use more fertilisers than otherwise they would have done and it is helping forward Government policy in making agriculture more efficient while reducing the high costs of production.
On the proportion of subsidy compared with the price that the farmer pays, I found recently that I was paying £30 a ton for a fertiliser and I was getting back £10 in subsidy. That is a rather high proportion. It is not as high as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North spoke of; it is more nearly an average proportion. I think it rather high and I would be quite content to see that proportion reduced. The fertiliser industry ought to be able to go ahead with a lower subsidy to the farmer and still have the industry developed to full advantage for the country. The farmer could do with a smaller payment so long as the


fertiliser firms continue their policy of price reduction.
I do not quarrel with the Supplementary Estimates, but I think that these items for eggs and fertilisers are high. The country as a whole has received benefit from them and I hope we shall agree to these Estimates.

4.34 p.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) will not expect me to follow him in his mea culpa for fertiliser firms. He has declared an interest to us and I declare an interest as a customer of the fertiliser companies. I am concerned to see that the companies continue to reduce their prices to the farmers.
What I should like those firms to do occasionally is to look at the price advantage which the large farmer gets, because he can buy in six-ton or twelve-ton loads, or in truck-loads, while the small farmer who has not got lorries to collect has to pay quite an excessive cost for carriage. That extra cost is avoided by the better equipped farm.
What the hon. Member had to say about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) proved, I think, that he was not listening very carefully. My hon. Friend did not say that the subsidy was going to the farmer and not to the consumer. I think my hon. Friend accepted the fact that the agricultural subsidies are, in fact, subsidies to consumer prices. I do not want to deal with the question of pigs, first, because that would be out of order in this discussion, and, secondly, because —adopting the modesty of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro)—I can now claim that the right hon. Gentleman has adopted the policy I adumbrated to him on the occasion of the debate on the Address, when I urged a certain policy on the Minister.
I want to talk about potatoes. When looking at these figures it is difficult to try to challenge their validity, because they are produced by such expert people in such a form that it is neither possible nor wise to attempt to do so. If we look at the potato subsidy we find that the amount required for the Supplementary Estimate to 30th March is another £166,000. Are those figures based on any certainty of knowledge which the Minister possesses? I ask that because

I am puzzled by two conflicting statements.
I am a registered potato producer. In February of this year—at a time covered by the Supplementary Estimate—I received a letter from the Potato Marketing Board which said:
On the Board's stock census figures, and assuming there is no great change in human consumption between now and the end of June,"—
the following words are in capital letters—
THERE IS NO SURPLUS OF POTATOES ON THE PRESENT RIDDLES. After allowing for what the Board has already bought and is diverting to stockfeed, there is, in fact, an estimated shortage.
When we turn to the White Paper what do we find the Government are saying? It says:
Yields from the 1959 crop are above normal and production is expected to show an increase of about 23 per cent. on 1958–59, with a considerable surplus above requirements for human consumption.

Major Legge-Bourke: I think that the hon. Member is getting confused by something which confused me the first time I read it. If he looks at page 128, subhead B6, he will find that this relates to the price for potatoes guaranteed up to 30th June, 1959. In other words, it is dealing with potatoes from the previous year's crop.

Sir L. Plummer: If that is so, of course it is an explanation and I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for pointing out what confused me in the discrepancy between the statement made by the Potato Marketing Board and the statement in the White Paper.
But what is still valid is the difference between what the Board said to me last month and what the Minister said to me on Thursday of last week. There is still a great discrepancy there. Does it mean that one branch of the Ministry does not know what another branch is doing? Are there two separate statistical staffs? How does it come about that I am told there is to be a shortage and then I am told there is to be a surplus from the same crop? I ask these questions not to embarrass the Government—that is the last thing I should want to do—but in the interests of agriculture. I want to get the situation cleared up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North asked what was the


Government's policy. Is not the dilemma that the Government are saying to farmers over and over again, "One thing you have to do is to increase your efficiency," while we have no yardstick by which to measure that except increased production? We are to produce more milk from the same cows, more eggs from the same hens, more arable crops from the same acres and more potatoes or whatever we grow. We are to try to cut down costs of production and, at the same time, increase our production.
Here is the dilemma. It will not be met by the Government's policy, which asks for efficiency one day and then the next day decides that efficiency must be penalised by consistent cuts in the guaranteed prices.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Denys Bullard: I should like, first, to deal with the cost of production grants, which is the first item on page 125. I think that a word ought to be said in defence of the general principle of production grants, because I think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) will say something against them. I think that a powerful word should be said in their favour, because I know that his advocacy is very powerful.
We ought to remember that these production grants have been of great benefit to the small farmer. In debates in the House we used to hear a great deal about a capital shortage in agriculture. We have not heard nearly as much about it lately, and I believe that that is due to the fact that farmers, and particularly small farmers, have had the benefit of the production grants. Money comes in very quickly after the initial sum has been spent. In a long-term process like agriculture, it is of great advantage if this can be the case.
The fertiliser subsidy, in particular, has been of benefit; all farmers like to receive it, but it is of special advantage to the small producer. The same comment applies to the egg subsidy. We ought to bear in mind that though the cost of these subsidies is undoubtedly high, they are of great benefit. I should not like to see them reduced, although I agree with the hon. Member for Sunder-land, North (Mr. Willey) that it is

necessary to see that they are properly applied and that the money gets through the channels to the producer.
We are all a little dismayed at the operation of the egg guarantees. All egg producers are concerned about the great reduction in producers' prices compared with last year. The reduction is about 11 per cent., which is a very big reduction. There is also the big increase in the cost of the egg subsidy to bear in mind.
In criticising the Estimate, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North did, it is incumbent upon hon. Members to offer us a better scheme than the present scheme so that the egg business may be better regulated. As I understand his conclusion—he is closely engaged in conversation at the moment, but I hope that I shall have his attention—it seems to me that he wanted the egg business to be removed from the schedule of guarantees altogether.

Mr. Willey: No. I recognise the hon. Member's interest in this matter. For three or four years the Government have been trying to reduce egg production. I do not know why. Secondly, there is a wide field of production containing different types of producers. Some are almost industrial producers. I am concerned to see that the true agricultural producer gets the support intended for him.

Mr. Bullard: I accept that, and I am sure that that is the result which the hon. Member wants to see. I have looked at this matter very carefully and thought of all the possibilities of different ways of giving a guarantee to a commodity which, as the hon. Member said, is very short-term in its production life. The problem which faces us arises from the character of egg production.
I support the Government in their policy of a profit-and-loss sharing scheme, as a general principle of administering this industry, because I can see no better alternative. The Government are faced with an extraordinarily difficult problem in guaranteeing egg prices. That applies to some extent, too, to the guarantees of pig prices, which we are not discussing today. Those who grudge the cost of this scheme, it seems to me, must produce a better scheme Which will, at the same time, give a reasonable guarantee to egg producers.
It would be wrong to allow this debate to conclude after a point by point criticism of the Supplementary Estimates— which it is our duty as a Committee to make—without looking at the whole picture of the farm guarantees which, under the Agriculture Act, we are bound to implement.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Frank Tomney: With the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), I am the only speaker in the debate so far who has not an interest either in the farming industry or in the fertiliser industry. I am interested from the consumer's point of view.
I was very interested in the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who challenged the whole concept of the farming industry as it is today. During the twelve years since these grants and subsidies were instituted, the farming industry has been able to establish itself in a very favourable position in the nation. It has had the benefit of a powerful lobby and highly-paid advocates in bringing this situation about. Not since the departure of Mr. Stanley Evans, formerly the hon. Member for Wednesbury, have we had any hardhitting, vital debates on farm subsidies. Everybody seems to be agreed that the best method by which to give the taxpayers' money away is by both hands to the farmers as fast as we can give it.
Today is no exception. We have before us a whole list of subsidies, which grows year by year. Coupled with that list is a Report of the Monopolies Commission on fertilisers which is alarming. Frankly, I do not understand the mechanics by which some of these prices have been arrived at. In dealing with the egg prices, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that there was a support price of 5¼d. per dozen, of which the producer received 2d., and that the Government guaranteed nine-tenths of the remainder. According to my calculation, if there is a glut of eggs on the market, and the producer wants to recover his costs, he simply forces more eggs on to the market to receive a higher guaranteed price. Is that right? That seems to me to be the argument as it affects the consumer. The producer

forces more eggs on to the market to get more of the total guaranteed price.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Member is not quite right. It is rather complicated, and I am not surprised that he is not quite right. If he studies my speech in HANSARD he will find that the situation is not quite as he put it.

Mr. Tomney: That is the trouble—it is all complicated.
Here we have a list of subsidies which is very long, and I wonder whether the farmer gives anything out of his own money. According to the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South, who was right in this context but wrong, as usual, in his final submission, when the Common Market is established by June of this year there will be a surplus of agricultural commodities which they will export to this country willy-nilly, despite the tariff barrier.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member is going ahead of the subect. We are dealing only with the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Tomney: I thought I should be out of order, but I decided to risk it.
In that case, where are we going? It means that to guarantee ourselves against cheap food from overseas these subsidies must be paid. Over the last dozen years we have seen so much price support—farming subsidies for every commodity, including farm buildings, production prices, improvement grants and machinery grants. Do subsidies never reach a stage when in any one year the Government can say, "We have had enough of that for this year. We do not want any more of it?" Or do they say, "We have had enough of that. We will now try something else"? That seems to be the position.
These different arguments go up in ratio. There is a different ratio for each commodity year by year. One year silo subsidies had the biggest Supplementary Estimate. In another year it is calf subsidies. In another year, as it is this year, it is egg subsidies. So it goes on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), who is a practical farmer, said that he does not know how the combination in regard to potatoes has been arrived at because it does not bear any relevance to the last


nine months' production of potatoes. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) corrected him and said that the figure refers to the previous six months of 1959. How is this calculated? As a mere bystander and lookerover farm gates at fields of wheat, and at cattle, pigs and such animals, I am amazed that the country has got itself into this fix and does not seem to be able to get out of it.
Something must be done. It used to be argued that we needed farm produce because we are an island. The days have gone when that argument could be legitimately advanced. We have now reached a stage in international affairs when a major war would not last very long.
I will now state my only criticism of these Supplementary Estimates. The next time Estimates are circulated I ask the Minister kindly to publish an Explanatory Memorandum with them. I ask him to explain to ordinary back benchers representing such constituencies as mine, where the nearest farm is perhaps ten miles away, how this fantastic set-up has been arrived at and what is the general policy as regards subsidies. If the Minister did that, the Committee would begin to understand exactly what it is doing, what it can do for the industry, and what it can do in justice. No one wants to see the farming industry so low that it is unproductive, but it is obvious that many people have had a nice fat living out of this and are prepared to go on with it if they have the chance.

Mr. Willey: To confuse my hon. Friend a little further, may I ask him if he is aware that farmers' incomes are less now than they were two years ago in spite of the exceptionally good conditions last year?

Mr. Tomney: That is the kind of position we get into. If the experts cannot understand it, what chance has a back bencher? I will take that criticism from my hon. Friend and I hope to discuss it with him later.
If the few points I have raised have added any interest to the debate, I shall be most satisfied with the result of what is my first incursion, but by no means my last, into the details of farming grants and subsidies. From now on,

I must take a much greater interest in this subject. Unfortunately, Mr. Stanley Evans has gone. Somebody has to protect the taxpayers.

4.54 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am sure that we shall all welcome the addition of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) to the ranks of the "feather bedders" at very short notice. I have some sympathy with his difficulties, because even those of us who try to study detailed aspects of the subsidisation of various groups find these figures extremely hard to understand fully.
I wish to point out one misunderstanding concerning Item B.6, "Potatoes." The original Estimate was £408,500. The revised Estimate is £575,000. We are dealing with the financial year 1959–60. As the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) said, if we then go further to Appendix 5D in the White Paper, we see that the total grant for the financial year beginning 1st April, 1959, is to be £1 million.
The hon. Member for Deptford rightly pointed out what the Potato Marketing Board had recently said to him about this year's crop, but I think that I was right—indeed, I think that I saw my right hon. Friend agree—in saying that the £166,500 extra for 1959–60 refers to the guarantee which was payable arising out of the potato crop brought over to the end of 1958 and the beginning of 1959.

Sir L. Plummer: I am not making that point. The point I am making is that the Potato Marketing Board, talking about the present crop, namely, the crop we are now eating, says that there will be a shortage. The Minister, also referring to the crop which we are now eating, says that there will be a surplus. I asked which was the valid figure.

Major Legge-Bourke: I appreciate that that was the other point the hon. Member was making, but I do not think that it is strictly relevant to these Supplementary Estimates.
I am trying to discover why the total shown for the financial year 1959–60 in the Supplementary Estimates is £575,000, whereas in the White Paper the total amount of Exchequer support for the year 1959–60 in respect of potatoes is


shown as £1 million. What I strongly suspect is happening is that we do not yet know fully what the total expenditure was for 1959–60 and the Government may be covering themselves against the outside contingency in the Annual Price Review White Paper. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that when he replies to the debate.
I do not want to go into any great detail on egg production. I have only one particular point to raise. The Minister will remember that some months ago I took up with him the whole question of new entrants into the poultry industry, and in particular those new entrants who are big farmers already in other types of agriculture. It is important that we should find some way of avoiding a recurrence of what has happened in the Supplementary Estimates with which we are dealing now.
The time has come, if it is not already overdue, for the Minister to do to the agriculture industry what the Chancellor of the Exchequer frequently does to the banks. He should tell them that there is a certain policy he would like their assistance in trying to carry out. The time is now overdue for the Minister to say to the National Farmers' Union, "In allowing the larger of your farming members to come into the poultry industry at this stage, all you are doing is cutting the throats of smaller producers". The Minister should ask the National Farmers' Union to co-operate in all their county branches to find a way out of this.
I have had quite a number of protests from my own constituency about this in the financial year we are talking about, and even before that. My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and I probably do not agree on this. If we are to have marketing boards at all, for goodness sake let them be producer-controlled. That may not fully deal with the problem whether there should be a board in every case. If there are to be boards, they should be producer-controlled so that responsibility rests squarely on producers, otherwise they will never have a hope of success.
The difficulties which the Egg Marketing Board has experienced have not been entirely its own fault. I know that during the course of this financial year it has

issued several instructions or advice notes to its members saying that, if they increased their breeding stock, the industry would run into trouble. Those pieces of advice have been totally ignored. There has been an increase in a very short time of 250,000 birds in one area in my own constituency. That was after the advice had been issued that breeding stock should not be increased.
If that sort of thing is happening, and if the producers cannot work with their own Board, they have only themselves to blame. The tragedy is that some of the bigger people, who need not have done so, have caused the heaviest burden to fall on those people who are most easily hurt. It is up to the industry itself to help the Board to get out of this situation.
Finally, may I comment on the observations of my hon. Friend and constituent the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) in taking me up on an intervention which I made in the speech of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about production grants? I would readily agree with my hon. Friend that production grants help the smaller man very considerably, but I must confess that, if we are to have production grants at all, I should have preferred to see them on a far more selective basis, so that if we are to pay them at all, we pay far more to the smaller people, and far less to the people who do not need these grants. That is my criticism of a number of other aspects of present policy regarding farm improvement schemes, horticulture and all the rest.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North registered any surprise himself when I interrupted him. He has heard me on two occasions, on the subject of horticulture, say that I did not like production grants, as a mater of principle. I adhere to that view, because my belief—and this Estimate bears it out—is that what matters most to the producer is the end-price. If that is achieved, he will be able, out of his prosperity, to plough back.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North wanted to know what the consumers are getting out of this. If we say that we want the general prosperity in the country to be shared by the people in the countryside, we must give some


support of some kind to agriculture. If that was taken away, we should only have to look across the Irish Sea in order to appreciate what the result would be. The agricultural minimum wage in this country, instead of being £8 per week, would be £5 a week. It would mean acute distress in the rural areas, which I do not think any of us would want to see. Therefore, we have to support agriculture in one way or another. My criticism is of the detailed way in which we are doing it.
If we could get down to the details of these matters in the coming year and see if we could get an all-party agreement on them, the industry would benefit, the Exchequer would benefit and the consumer certainly would not be hurt. Some hon. Members have been asking about the latest figures which we have been given. If hon. Members care to look at the figures given in Appendix II in the White Paper on the Price Review, they will see that they deal with the actual aggregate net farming incomes. It looks very nice, if we take the figure for 1951, when this Government came into power, which is £326 million, and compare it with the figure for the year we are now discussing —1959-60—which is £356½ million. Some account, however, has to be taken of the fall in the value of money, which has meant a very considerable reduction in net income. It is very nearly £100 million less, when we reckon that the £ was worth 20s. in 1951 and it is now worth only 16s. 4d.
When we take that into account, the consumer is not doing too badly. If we were to reduce the level of subsidies now given to the industry in one way or another, the effect would be very damaging to the foreign exchange which this industry enables us to earn. It would certainly not help the agricultural machinery industry to export, and this industry is also earning a lot of money. It must have a firm home market behind it, and if we were to allow agriculture to slip back, we should damage that situation very badly indeed.
I think it is all too easy to pick out the one farmer with a Bentley, but what about all the company directors in London who have Bentleys, or whose companies have Bentleys? I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North that probably we are both trying

to do the same thing—make sure that every penny that is spent is spent in the wisest way; and, if we can, I think we should in the coming year try to get agreement on these matters on an all-party basis.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. John Eden: Like the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) I am not a farmer, and also like him, I find myself a little puzzled by the complexity of some of these Supplementary Estimates.
I am sorry that this discussion is limited to Class VIII, Vote 2, because I should have liked to have said a word or two about Vote 3. I have placed an Amendment on the Notice Paper relating to one aspect of that Vote; but it is one of the difficulties of the present basis that one cannot fully examine the Supplementary Estimates before us. I feel that, even though we are picking and choosing and looking at one or two of the subheads, it is nevertheless a pity that we cannot have a more comprehensive investigation and closer scrutiny of all the Supplementary Estimates upon which we are asked to vote. I understand, of course, that this is established practice, and it would therefore be difficult to depart from it.
When making his introductory speech at the opening of this short debate, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred quite rightly to the fact that his Department was asking for a further £7 million or just over. In actual fact, the difference between the original Estimates and the revised Estimates, which represents the additional sum required, is something over £16 million, and the order of the difference is rather greater than one might have been led to expect by referring simply to the figure of £7 million. The difference between the £15½ million and the £7 million, referred to on page 126, is due to the expected savings on a number of other subheads.
Would it be in order for either my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend, whoever will reply to this short discussion, to say anything about these expected savings? What is meant, for example, by expected savings? Is there any sort of degree of certainty about them; and, if some of these savings are not forthcoming, is there to be a fresh approach to the Committee with a


further Supplementary Estimate? It is right that we should examine these Estimates as closely as possible.
There is a further point which I had in mind in reading each of these subheads, and the details given concerning them, in this Vote. How much of this expenditure could have been calculated beforehand? How much of it could have been estimated? I understand that this might have been rather difficult, particularly in view of changeable weather conditions, and I agree that one cannot calculate for the weather with sufficient accuracy, even if one listens to the B.B.C. One cannot tell whether it will be a fine day or a rainy day until it actually happens, but could not these figures be more closely estimated in the first case? Does not this difference of £16 million give an indication that insufficient attention is being paid to the experience of previous years? Is there not a possibility of getting the figures more accurately? My right hon. Friend the Minister, in moving the original Estimate, is in danger of giving a false picture in the first place, since we agreed to the figure at the beginning and a little later on, my right hon. Friend comes along with an application for a substantial increase.
I want to refer more specifically, however, to the subject of eggs. Cereals and eggs between them amount to a total additional sum of money of about £12 million. My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinching-brooke) has referred to the Egg Marketing Board, and I am wondering how much of this money goes to the Egg Marketing Board. What happens to the actual sum of £36½ million? Where does that money go? According to the explanation given in page 128 we know that it is paid to the British Egg Marketing Board—but what happens to it after that? Does it go to furnish the Board with finer offices? It has recently moved to a great new establishment. Why should it go into finer offices and in this way draw attention to its activities at the expense of the taxpayer? What exactly happens to the money? Before my hon. Friend asks the Committee to vote this extra money, may we know whether he has made careful inquiry into the activities of the Board and its establishment, and inquired into the

necessity for the Board to sustain such a substantial staff, as it no doubt does?
If one is not privileged to be a member of the Opposition, it is very difficult to scrutinise these Estimates with sufficient care and detail, but what scrutiny has my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend the Minister made of the necessity for this additional expenditure before presenting these Estimates to the Committee? I listened with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd), and fully understand that he is in a position to speak on the subject with far greater authority than I, but I did not quite follow him when he said that the greater part of the egg subsidy is a subsidy to the consumer.
He spoke as if that were a good thing, but I think that it is a bad thing. Why should the consumer have a subsidy which the taxpayer, who is also the consumer, has to pay? I do not follow his idea of encouraging the taxpayer in one part to pay a substantial sum of money in order to provide a subsidy to the consumer in the other part. Consumer and taxpayer are one and the same. I should like to see the whole system altered so that the consumer paid a more realistic price for the product, and taxes were reduced to enable him to do so.
I hope that my hon. Friend will give further assurances to the Committee that he has been careful to examine the expenditure under these headings, and that it was not possible to estimate more closely in the original Estimates. I hope that he will explain, if he can, further and in closer detail, why this substantial sum of money is required for the British Egg Marketing Board.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: We have had a very interesting debate. I disagree very much with the noble Lord the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) who said that these Estimates should go through very rapidly and that we should have only short speeches. That would be too perfunctory. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden) is quite right to ask his own Ministers for reasons for their submitting these Supplementary Estimates.
The time has come when we need more scrutiny of this great industry, and


that view has been supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), by the noble Lord, by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West and by the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). In fact, I wish that instead of discussing these Estimates in this sort of Committee, we had a special Select Committee on agriculture, fisheries and food. We already have a Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. I should like something of that sort for agriculture.
I would be out of order were I to pursue that too far at this moment, but I believe, as many hon. Members have said, that we have not adequate time to scrutinise these Estimates carefully. For that reason, I was rather surprised at the noble Lord's wish to make only a short speech, because it is the duty of every hon. Member—

Mr. John Peyton: Short speeches are usually much the best.

Mr. Peart: Yes, I think that they are —and that is the best speech the hon. Member has ever made in this Committee.
We are discussing important production grants, and grants that affect the price guarantees, and it is as well that we should remind ourselves what we are discussing. We are discussing the implementation of price guarantees in the context of the recent White Paper. That White Paper, as has been stated, deals with future policy, and the amount involved is £157·8 million. For last year, the figure was £154·7 million. Future policy for farming grants and subsidies means a sum of £94·6 million while, for last year, the figure was £80·9 million.
We all agree that this is a tremendous sum, and at one time we used to be delighted by the former hon. Member for Wednesbury. His ghost has, I think, risen today, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North will resurrect that former argument, even though I rejected the viewpoint of Stanley Evans when he was a Member of the House of Commons.
It is right that subsidy policy should be scrutinised carefully. That is what we are now doing, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North was

right to intervene in the debate. This is not a matter merely for hon. Members like myself who represent rural constituencies. It affects every constituency, and there is certainly a consumer point of view.
I agree with the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) who said that these producer grants serve a useful purpose. On the other hand, it is right— and this is all that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) advocated—that we should scrutinise their effect. We have argued this in detail during the various stages of the Horticulture Bill, and the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely put the point of view of the horticultural growers. It may be, as he said, that the incidence of that grant affects merely the large producer, and many hon. Members are worried lest the increased expenditure under the revised Estimates should, in the end, benefit only certain producers belonging to the categories mentioned.
I have always argued that producer grants have been for the good of the industry and of the consumer. They have enabled the community to inject capital into certain sections of the industry, such as fertilisers, which we have been discussing. It is right that we should analyse this, and here I come to the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) who, quite rightly, declared his interest in the great firm of Fisons, which has been examined by the Monopolies Commission.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was rather touchy about the criticisms advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North. My hon. Friend was merely repeating what was stated by the Commission, and I should like to quote further remarks in pages 208 and 209 of the Commission's Report, which makes a survey of the supply of chemical fertilisers. Paragraph 655 states:
Our main criticism is that Fisons has fixed its prices, and hence its profits, at too high a level, having regard to the strength of its position.
The Commission continues in the following page to say:
We think that Fisons should in future follow a price policy which would result in a lower rate of profit than that at which it has aimed in recent years.

Sir A. Hurd: I do not disagree at all. All I said was that that was, in fact, what the company has been doing, and its profit is now down to 17 per cent. Overall, the fertiliser industry has reduced its prices by £2,600,000 in the past year, so saving farming costs and increasing production. I therefore do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Peart: Yes. but, after all, paragraph 704 says:
In the matter of Fisons' pricing policy and the level of profits resulting from it, we do not believe that the company has acted in deliberate disregard of the public interest. We recommend that Fisons should adjust its pricing policy to yield a lower level of profit than has been achieved in recent years, and we believe that the company can be relied on to carry out this recommendation in the light of our report.
We say that there was a policy that worked to the disadvantage of the farmer.

Sir A. Hurd: It does not.

Mr. Peart: Of course it did, otherwise that recommendation would not have been made. We can debate that on a later occasion, as we must. I hope, as the hon. Member for Newbury has said, that price policy will be adjusted.

Sir A. Hurd: It is being adjusted.

Mr. Peart: It is being adjusted and it will continue to be adjusted. Our main argument is this. We are to have an increased subsidy for fertilisers. Here we are debating an additional £1 million, and for lime, which was dealt with in connection with the fertiliser subsidy, we have a revised estimate amounting to £1,025,000. These are large sums of money. If we are to have increases in the fertiliser subsidy we want to ensure that the farmer and not the large firms will benefit.
After all, Fisons, I.C.I. and the others which are covered in the Monopolies Commission's Report, are virtually large monopolies. We must ensure that they do not harm the primary producers and that the farmer gets a square deal with this subsidy. In other words, if he receives a subsidy, the price of the commodity should not automatically be raised by those who supply it. That is all that my hon. Friends seek to establish.
I am certain that that is the broad policy of the Government. They too are mentioned in the Monopolies Commission's Report, their views having been requested by the Commission. They were asked for their views on the price to the farmers and they were asked whether there should be a national delivery price. The Board of Trade expressed uncertainty on this matter. I should like to know, in view of the fertiliser position and of what has been said today, whether the Minister still accepts categorically what was said in evidence to the Monopolies Commission. I myself agree with that viewpoint, and I dissent from the views of Professor Allen who submitted a minority Report which can be seen in the Appendix. We agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that we want increased use of fertilisers and we wish also to develop our soil fertility.
There is another point which has not been mentioned. There is a subsidy for nitrogenous fertilisers and one for phos-phatic fertilisers, but there is no subsidy for potash. Yet farmers are using increased amounts of all three. Is this directly due to the subsidy? In one case no subsidy is paid. I should like an answer to that question, because on the surface it would appear to show that the farmer is using more fertiliser on the farm not because of the subsidy but because of the advisory services, and indeed the very good advisory service provided by Fisons and I.C.I. on fertiliser use. That is a good thing, but we want to know how far will this increase in the subsidy affect that trend. Would the trend continue without the subsidies?
Again, there is an increase in respect of silage. I should like to know why there has been this increase in view of the fact that in the Ministry's own Press statement,
The 1959 production of silage was affected by the dry season. It is about 2·8 million tons, or 30 per cent. below the figure for 1958.
Yet here we are dealing with a specific increase.
There is one item which I support wholeheartedly, and that is Subhead A.7 —" Bonus payments under the Tuberculosis (Attested Herds) Scheme, 1958 (England and Wales)". I think every hon. Member will support this, because we hope that this year we shall have the


area eradication plan completed. The Minister has made a statement on this matter recently and we hope that this plan will soon mean the ending of tuberculosis among our herds and a clean herd policy.
But what after that? After the final stage of the plan, where next? Questions were once put to the Minister about this. Does it mean that he envisages a reduction of the sums of money which are broadly covered by this subhead? Will it mean that testing will continue? Will more of our veterinary staffs be engaged on other work? I should like to have specific details.
On cereal production, I would merely say that although my hon. Friends have questioned this point carefully, there is a high rate of Exchequer costs for cereals as a whole and particularly for wheat. I believe that we must encourage this still, even though we must look carefully at the subsidy cost. We want home cereal production. This is a balance of payments matter, and we think it right and proper.
I would repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has said on the subject of eggs. Here we are dealing with a very important Estimate—an increase of £4,150,000, from £32,350,000 to £36,500,000. The main point that was mentioned by my hon. Friend was this: here we have a deliberate reduction in the subsidy over the last three years. Yet egg production has increased. The Exchequer contribution has increased. What is our policy to be? It seems a stupid one at the moment. Do we wish large producers or small producers to go out of business? I think the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely was concerned about the small producers going out.

Major Legge-Bourke: I was concerned with the big new ones coming.

Mr. Peart: He was concerned with the big new one's coming in at the expense of the small producers. Is that the policy of the Government? Are the Government having any special regard to import policy because supplies have increased? I read in the Farmer and Stock-breeder an extremely interesting article by an economist, Mr. Weeks, who put to egg producers these questions, which ought

to be considered by the Minister and by egg producers:
Do egg producers honestly think that this state of affairs can continue? More eggs coming on to the market and the prospect of more taxpayers' money going in subsidy.
Even the producers and people involved in agriculture are concerned with this. We are merely concerned with what is the policy of the Government. Are they seeking to affect the small producer? Are they going to continue, by means of the price policy, to try to restrict production despite the fact that after three years of that policy it has failed? We all know the reasons why egg production has gone up—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): Order. I must ask the hon. Member not to discuss the general policy. He may discuss only the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Peart: I was trying to reply to points which have already been raised, but certainly I will keep to the Estimates. I feel that we should be told why we have this increase, in view of past policy. That is a reasonable request, and I hope that an answer will be given today.
Many hon. Members have discussed different Estimates in detail. I would merely say in conclusion that today we have considered the Supplementary Estimates and we have allowed ourselves approximately two hours of Parliamentary time. This is not enough. I come back to my original suggestion—I hope I may do so without going out of order —and express the hope that, one day, we shall discuss these matters in a specialist committee.
Today, we have not had ample time for the examination we should devote to these Estimates. We should consult the Minister and discuss these points with him, but, more than that, I should like to see all the other bodies involved in the industry coming before a Parliamentary committee.
This is a very big issue. The Estimates will certainly go through, even though they may go through rather rapidly, as the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South thought they might; but it is right to question them, and we should be told what really is the policy and purpose of the Government particularly in respect of the various


increased items, and how they are related to the broad general background of agriculture.

5.30 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): We have had an extremely useful and interesting debate, although, as the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) has just said, it has not been very long. We have for two hours been discussing these important Estimates, and it is only right and proper that the Committee should take its duties as seriously, as it clearly has this afternoon. It seems to me that I ought to try to answer as many of the main points put during the debate as I can. If I am unable to cover them all and I have to pass over some of the less important matters, I will certainly undertake to write to hon. Members tomorrow.
The subject of eggs has occupied a considerable part of our time. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) had some fairly harsh things to say about the egg subsidy. As my hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Bullard) pointed out, the hon. Gentleman was rather more destructive than constructive, and he was not entirely accurate in all his conclusions. We have, of course, known and deplored the fact that the egg subsidy has been increasing considerably. We are spending at this moment about £36 million in a year. The portion of the price of an egg represented by the subsidy is about 1d.; and, as the hon. Gentleman said, production has been increasing.
I think I can tell him why there has been this very large increase in production. It is largely due to one factor, namely, the very considerable, almost revolutionary, increase in technical efficiency.

Mr. Willey: I said that.

Mr. Hare: Another factor which the hon. Gentleman did not, I think, mention is that the profit and loss sharing arrangements which were agreed between the National Farmers' Union and ourselves on behalf of the Egg Marketing Board when the Egg Marketing Board was set up have not in practice worked as they were intended to work. They have in fact formed part of the reason for the increase in production which has taken place. Until last year,

the arrangements worked extremely satisfactorily from the point of view of the producer. They worked very much to the advantage of the producer in 1957–58, for example. Although we reduced the guaranteed price then by l¾d., producers actually got 2½d. from the profit and loss sharing arrangement. In 1958-59, we reduced the guaranteed price by l¾d., but producers received l·7d. from the arrangements. So producers really had most of the benefit of market prices higher than we had been able to forecast, and these, so to speak, unexpected dividends offset the cuts we made in the guaranteed price to the Board.
That was the picture until last year. Then we cut the guaranteed price by 1d. Producers then actually lost 2¼d. through the profit and loss sharing arrangements and, since they had gained rather more than l·7d. the year before, this meant that they received 5d. per dozen less than they had the previous year. Producers felt directly the effect of the fall in market prices which had taken place as the supplies of eggs increased. So, indeed, has the Exchequer felt the increased cost occasioned by the increased supplies. That is why we have asked for this Supplementary Estimate now.
As I announced last week, we have decided to alter these profit and loss sharing arrangements. We have now agreed on revised arrangements which, I believe, will do a great deal to reduce the year-to-year fluctuations in producers' returns. It may well be that producers will receive about Id. a dozen more next year than they did last year even though we have again cut the guaranteed price. What we all want is greater stability for the egg producer at a rather lower level of production and at prices which allow a profit for efficient producers. I think that the new profit and loss sharing arrangements will go a long way in that direction.
Again, I quarrel a little with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North when he says that the consumer had very little benefit from the egg subsidy.

Mr. Willey: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point about the price of eggs, I should like to have this quite clear. I gather now that, although the Price Review White Paper says that there is a reduction in egg prices, there


is not, in fact, to be a reduction—it is an increase—and the right hon. Gentleman is saying, because there is now to be an increase in prices, that there will be a reduction in production.

Mr. Hare: What I said was that we shall have far more stability under the new profit sharing arrangements. I tried to show clearly that, although we cut eggs by only Id. last year, because these profit and loss sharing arrangements worked in the way they did, the producers suddenly had to face a cut of 5d. instead of the 1d. which was intended. Under the new arrangements, I think we shall avoid utterly unnecessary fluctuations.
The hon. Gentleman was not right in saying that the consumer had no benefit from the egg subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) took that point up. The consumer has benefited. We must, I think, look at average retail prices over the whole year. Taking the year 1959–60, the average retail price for all types of eggs is 3s. 6d. per dozen as against 3s. 11¾d. in 1958-59 and 3s. 9d. in 1957–58. It is not, therefore, true to say that the consumer has not benefited from the subsidy.
The next big item in the debate was that of production grants. There was some general discussion about these grants, and we had some discussion about fertilisers in particular. One of the themes of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that, although production grants may be quite good things, we were not certain that we got proper value for money. Well, I believe that production grants are of the very greatest importance. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Lynn pointed out, quite rightly, that they have been of enormous value to the small man. I would say also that, from their very nature, they provide the means by which farmers, big or small, can be enabled to reduce their costs. Such grants, moreover, bear fruit not only in the year that they are received but in subsequent years. I think that they form a very important element in enabling the farming community to reduce its production costs.
Again, I do not think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North was perhaps as fair as he should have been in

what he said about fertilisers. He compared the amount of fertilisers used in this country with the amount used on the Continent. If I remember aright, he started his speech by saying, "I think that on the whole the fertiliser subsidy is a good thing, but I wonder whether we are getting value for money." He said, and it is true, that we are not using as much fertiliser as many Western European countries, but I do not think that he was comparing like with like. I think that he forgets the very different conditions that exist in this country as compared with those in Western European countries. Obviously, a much larger proportion of our land is under permanent grass. Admittedly, I think that we could use far more fertilisers than we are using; but, on the other hand, if one compares large quantities of land under permanent grass with ordinary tillage land such as is almost universal on the Continent, it is clear that there would automatically be a larger proportion of fertiliser used on that tillage land.
There is no doubt that this fertiliser subsidy has proved extremely useful.

Mr. Willey: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that these are important matters. How does he square his present argument with the size of the subsidy? If the importance of fertilisers in our agriculture is less than their importance in other countries, why have we far and away the largest subsidy? Will the right hon. Gentleman also deal with the other point that I raised about not only the use but the rate of increase of use?

Mr. Hare: Again, I think that the hon. Member is being a little hasty. I have not yet left the question of fertilisers.
As the Committee knows, we have made a reduction this year in the fertiliser subsidy, but the fact that it has risen from £8 million to the present figure of £29 million is, in many ways, an indication of the success of this subsidy. It shows the very much larger quantity of fertilisers which our farming industry is using as a result of having been encouraged to do so by the subsidy. I do not think that that point was made very clearly by the hon. Member.
There have been one or two comments about the Report of the Monopolies


Commission. The hon. Member for Workington gave us his views on this matter. As I have explained, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is consulting the industry to see how far it is prepared to give effect to the conclusions in the Report. These consultations are in progress. I do not think that it would be proper for me to comment on the Report until the industry has had a chance to consider its implications and to make its own representations to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Peart: I well understand if the right hon. Gentleman cannot comment on that matter, but some hon. Members concerned with the matter have rightly put their point of view. Will the right hon Gentleman comment on the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. The Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General does not come under this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Peart: With regard to the administration of the subsidy, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the recommendations will be carried out?

Mr. Hare: I should like to follow up the point raised by the hon. Member. He is, I think, referring to our own domestic arrangements for the administration of the subsidy.
I think that on the whole our arrangements for administering the subsidy are good. But I should be the last in this world to say that no improvement could be made in any arrangements.
I have been looking at these particular arrangements with considerable care and attention. We have made, and are making, certain changes which I think will be helpful in the direction that the hon. Member thinks we should go. We have used the regional organisation as well as our technical staff in order to make many more checks both on farms and, where they agree, at suppliers' premises. We are undertaking many thousands of visits to farms and suppliers and are planning to increase the number of visits next year. Then, secondly, we are extracting for detailed examination all claims for amounts exceeding £150. Finally, we have improved the paper form on which the subsidy is claimed, so as to enable a check

to be made on the delivery of fertilisers before subsidy is paid. These arrangements will further strengthen our hand in tackling the problems which the Committee rightly thinks we should tackle. We have a great responsibility in the expenditure of public money.
There is one other improvement which I should like to mention. At present, our powers do not allow us to examine the records of fertiliser suppliers. This is a gap which ought to be filled. As I have already said, I shall in due course be submitting legislative proposals to enable us to examine suppliers' records.
I am glad that these points have been raised, because it is right that the House of Commons should know that we are taking our duties seriously. These are the sort of improvements which I think will assist our administration.
A number of other points were raised which I should like to try to answer. The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) raised several points. He said that he could not understand the figures, and I think that his confusion was shared by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie). Confusion was caused because I think that hon. Members have forgotten that we had a Supplementary Estimate, which was not debated, in July this year. If hon. Members will look at subhead B.6 in the Supplementary Estimate, they will see a revised Estimate of £575,000. If they add the revised Estimate of £200,010 in Subhead B.9 and the Supplementary Estimate of £225,000, they will arrive at the figure in the White Paper. I think that that is where confusion arose.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East asked me a number of questions. He said, "Why could not the silo subsidy be paid as part of the farm improvement scheme?" One of the difficulties is that it is a different rate of grant and it was put on the Statute Book before the farm improvement scheme. There would be considerable technical difficulty in doing what the hon. Member suggested, and amending legislation would be needed. The hon. Member also made a point about the fertiliser subsidy. I should like to look into that.
Other points made by the hon. Member related to figures about potatoes, and the hon. Member for Deptford said he could not understand why the Potato Marketing Board had said one thing and I had said the opposite. The explanation is that the Board was discussing the amount of potatoes which would be in supply on the basis of the 2 in. riddle being continued in use, whereas I was dealing with total supplies, which include all potatoes. That might account for the discrepancy.

Sir L. Plummer: That is not the answer. Two categorically contradictory statements have been made. The Potato Marketing Board said that there was a prospect of shortage this year. In paragraph 32 of the White Paper the Minister says that the yields were above normal and that production was expected to show an increase, and he talks about a considerable surplus for human consumption. These are two diametrically opposite views.

Mr. Hare: The hon. Member and I usually quarrel about pigs. This is a new source of discord.

Sir L. Plummer: I won on pigs.

Mr. Hare: The Potato Marketing Board dealt with the total supplies of potatoes for human consumption, on the basis of the 2 in. riddle, whereas I am talking about the total available supply of potatoes.

Sir L. Plummer: For human consumption. The words appear in the right hon. Gentleman's own paper.

Mr. Hare: If we have a 2 in. riddle and say that nothing below 2 in. shall be sold for human consumption, a large number of potatoes are immediately no longer available for human consumption. Is not that a fairly clear explanation?

Sir L. Plummer: No.

Mr. Hare: I will write to the hon. Member, if he cannot understand my explanation.
I am grateful that we had a newcomer to our debates, the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney). I am all for having recruits, because the more people take an intelligent interest

in agriculture, the better it is for the industry. The hon. Member was very modest. He admitted that he was a beginner. We like beginners. We hope that he will not adopt too rigid a view, because I am sure that he agrees that he has a lot to learn on the subject. We on this side of the Committee also have a lot to learn.
It is easy to ask what the farmers are doing with the large sums of money made available to them and to ask what happens to the subsidies. My view, and I hope that it is shared by most hon. Members, is that the country has every right to know how these production grants and subsidies are paid, but that it would be doing a major disservice to give the impression that the country is not getting value for money in giving this support to agriculture. Any such impression would be quite wrong. We in this country eat probably cheaper and, as I have said before, from a far wider range of foods than almost any other country.
I am therefore certain that this money is well spent. Unfortunately I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden), but I gather that he asked whether I was looking carefully at the Estimates. I agree with him that it is the duty of the Minister, and of the House of Commons, to scrutinise with care the spending of all this public money. Having said that, I have no hesitation in asking the Committee to approve the Vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,280,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for grants and subsidies to farmers and others for the encouragement of food production and the improvement of agriculture; for payments and services in implementation of agricultural price guarantees; and for certain other services including a payment to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland.

CLASS VI

Orders of the Day — Vote 2. Board of Trade (Assistance to Industry and Trading Services)

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,002,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course


of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the expenditure of the Board of Trade on assistance and subsidies to certain industries, and on trading and other services; subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.

5.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): In introducing the Supplementary Estimate, I have first 'to express my regret that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is unable to be present. He is in Vienna on European Free Trade Area negotiations.
The amount of this Supplementary Estimate is £1,002,000, compared with the original Estimate of £2,044,095 for the year. But there was no provision in the original Estimate for 1959-60 for assistance to the cotton industry. Hon. Members will recall that the Cotton Industry Act became law only last summer and that provision was made then for supplementary sums of £10 in respect of compensation payments and grants towards re-equipment and modernisation.
The sum of money required for assistance to the cotton industry is £999,990.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Is that a serious figure, an actuarial figure, or an estimate?

Mr. Rodgers: No doubt my hon. Friend has studied the Supplementary Estimate. He will see that it is a serious figure contained in the Estimate, but to a certain extent it is an estimate.
Over the remainder of Vote 2, which covers a wide field of activities, the net increase in only £2,010, expected savings of £40,100 being almost sufficient to offset the small additional amounts required under certain subheads—£33,420—and a small deficiency in appropriations in aid —£8,690.
The only significant item in terms of money required in this Supplementary Estimate is, therefore, assistance to the cotton Industry (Compensation Payments). This Estimate is required to make provision for the Government's contribution of two-thirds of the costs of compensation for the elimination of excess capacity under the Spinning, Doubling and Weaving Re-organisation Schemes, which were approved by Parliament in July, 1959, pursuant to the Cotton Industry Act, 1959.
The responsibility for making payments has been placed on the Cotton Board and the remaining one-third of the cost of compensation is derived from compulsory levies on the sections of the industry concerned. Except in cases where an extension of the period is granted by the Cotton Board for special reasons, scrapping must be completed by 31st March of this year.
The total amount of the Government's contribution under the three schemes will be of the order of £10½ million, but not more than £1 million will be required during the present financial year.
Every case is being thoroughly scrutinised by the Cotton Board so as to ensure that, before payment is made, all the necessary conditions laid down in the schemes—including the conditions relating to the compensation of displaced workers—have been strictly fulfilled.
Applications for scrapping under the reorganisation scheme have amounted to 50 per cent. of the spindles and 40 per cent. of the looms. Up to date approximately two-thirds of this machinery has been scrapped. Payments of about £600,000 have been made by the Cotton Board, of which £400,000 is the Government contribution.
The administration of the schemes falls on the Cotton Board, to whom Parliament entrusted the responsibility of carrying the schemes out. The House will, no doubt, fully share the Government's confidence in the Cotton Board and in Lord Rochdale and his colleagues on the Special Committee of independent members, which is the 'body set up to discharge the functions of the Cotton Board under the Cotton Industry Act. It consists of three employers and one trade unionist from other industries, in addition to Lord Rochdale as an independent Chairman.
The Cotton Board is naturally acting strictly in accordance with its statutory obligations and, while the Board of Trade keeps in close touch with it, the Committee will recognise that the necessary decisions which are required in the making of compensation payments, as in the administration of the schemes in general, are for the Cotton Board to take in accordance with the law.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I hope the hon. Member will make it clear that the trade unionists and the


employers' representatives on the Cotton Board have no responsibility for the administration of these schemes.

Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Member is right. I was referring to the Special Committee which is responsible for this administration under the Cotton Board.
The indications are that the schemes are progressing satisfactorily. The necessary scrapping is taking place without, I am glad to say, the serious effects on employment about which apprehensions were expressed when the schemes were first announced. There have been transitional difficulties, for example, in supplies of special types of cloth, but such are inevitable in any operation of this scale, especially one which coincided with a remarkable upsurge in demand for cotton textiles both in this country and abroad, and they are being tackled by the industry and should not be exaggerated.
I think all hon. Members will agree the spirit of confidence in the industry has improved beyond all expectation. The trade unions are fully co-operating in the development of shift working on a wider scale. This should facilitate the progress of re-equipment with the most up-to-date machinery, which may be expected to get fully under way now that the scrapping phase is reaching completion. The basis has, I believe, been laid for a more compact and competitive industry. This is what hon. Members in every part of the Committee supported.
I turn now to other items in the Supplementary Estimate. As I have already mentioned, the additional amounts of money required are small in absolute size; and they represent only very modest percentage increases compared with the original Estimate. There is one new item, Marine Insurance Claims, with which I will deal later.
The Council of Industrial Design has received a grant-in-aid in each of the past three years of £180,000, provided that the Council obtained receipts of £40,000 each year from fees charged at the Design Centre.
In addition, it was agreed that the Government should contribute £10,000 towards the cost of the Design Centre. The Council has qualified for the maximum grant in each year, and received the extra £10,000 in 1958–59. The original

Estimate for 1959–60 was £180,000, and the Supplementary Estimate is for £1,500 in the form of capital expenditure as an initial contribution to meet the cost of enlarging the Design Centre in Glasgow.
The success of the Design Centre in London led the Scottish Committee to establish a more modest version in Glasgow in 1957. This cost £7,800, approximately, of which nearly £3,000 was found by industry and the rest was found from the Council's basic grant. It was only possible, however, to stage three exhibitions a year there, and the Committee recently asked for assistance towards the cost of adapting its premises to enable a permanent but changing exhibition to be staged, and also for a copy of Design Index at present in the London Design Centre to be installed in Glasgow too.
It has been agreed that the Government should provide a maximum of £25,000 for this purpose, of which provision for £1,500 is made in this Supplementary Estimate.
I turn to the British Productivity Council. This Council is in receipt of a grant-in-aid of £110,000 for the five-year period ending 1960–61, conditional upon the Council obtaining, as it has done so far, annual contributions from both sides of industry of not less than £9,500. In a Written Reply to a Question on 29th July last, the then President announced that the Council had agreed to take over from the Government responsibility for publishing Target as from 1st January, 1960, and that the Government would seek authority for an additional grant to help meet the cost. Target is the official monthly bulletin on productivity, published by the Central Office of Information, on behalf of the Board of Trade and Ministry of Labour, and it consists mainly of case histories of the application of improved methods instituted by individual firms.
The original Estimate for 1959–60 was £110,000 and the amount of the Supplementary Estimate is £5,250. In recent years, Target has been financed largely from American Conditional Aid funds, but these ran out last year. The Government did not wish this useful bulletin to be discontinued, and the arrangement with the British Productivity Council ensures not only that it will be carried on by an expert body in the productivity


field but that the net cost to public funds will be a good deal less than if the Government had continued to produce the magazine themselves.
So much for the British Productivity Council. I am willing to go into greater detail if hon. Members desire.
The original Estimate in respect of the Guarantee to the Government of Northern Ireland for flax supplies was £2,000 and the Supplementary Estimate is for f 160. This provision is needed to meet the final claim under the scheme.
With permission, I should like to take Items D.2—Capital Expenditure—and D.3—Care and Maintenance—together. The original Estimates for 1959–60 were £17,500 and £23,500, respectively. Supplementary Estimates are required of £5,500 and £1,500, respectively. These payments concern certain factories acquired for the purpose of State trading or the production of scarce materials during and immediately after the war which are being disposed of.
The chief capital expense—Subhead D.2—we expected to be involved in in 1959–60 was the final settlement of a claim for additional costs incurred by a contractor for the erection of a rotary kiln during the Korean crisis. The settlement cost more than was expected, £22,000 against £15,000, but was partially offset by savings on other projects.
The increase for Care and Maintenance concerns a former magnesium factory in Lancashire which is being disposed of. The cost of this work in the present year is likely to be higher than was expected but will be partially offset by a saving elsewhere.
As to Subhead E.3, Other Services, provision is being made in the 1960–61 Estimates for the cost of a possible mission to Venezuela—in fact, initially the visit of an agricultural expert. Since the cost—of fares—of this visit may fall to be met before the Appropriation Act has received the Royal Assent in July, it could not be met from the Vote-on-Account unless token provision had been included in this Supplementary.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Is this expert who possibly may go to Venezuela going to learn or to teach or both?

Mr. Rodgers: To teach, and to explore the export possibilities of agricultural machinery from this country, mainly to help the Venezuelans.
The new Item, E.4, Marine insurance, is a small new item amounting to £19,500. Under the revised arrangements set out in the Supplementary Estimate, the Board of Trade has received £65,000 which has been paid to the Exchequer as Extra Receipts, but there are certain claims still to be met. At the end of the operation the Board of Trade will have received the same net amount as it would under the original arrangement, but the Exchequer instead of underwriters will have had use of the money.
I come finally to Appropriations in Aid, which is, I believe, of particular interest to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan). In 1953, the United States made a 9 million dollar gift to the United Kingdom for projects designed to increase productivity. The 9 million dollars were allocated to a wide range of projects administered by a number of different Government Departments, including the Board of Trade. The chief beneficiaries of projects for which the Board was responsible were the Revolving Fund for Industry, the British Productivity Council and the British Institute of Management, who received about £700,000, £220,000 and £95,000 respectively. The cost of the various projects, except the Revolving Fund for Industry, which was treated specially, and which is now being wound up, was shown in the appropriate Departmental Estimates in the normal way, but provision was made in the Appropriations in Aid to recover this from the American Aid (Productivity Assistance) Deposit Account into which the 9 million dollars had been paid. The cost of the projects did not, therefore, affect the net Votes for which Parliamentary authority was sought.
In the Board of Trade Estimates for 1959–60, provision was made for Conditional Aid Grants of £29,200 to the British Productivity Council, Subhead C.1, £8,000 for Miscellaneous Grants, Subhead C.2, and for £37,200 to be recovered from the Deposit Account, Subhead, Z.(2).
In fact, because projects have developed more slowly than was expected, the Conditional Aid grant to the British


Productivity Council is likely to be only £25,000 and the Miscellaneous Grants £4,000. Provision is, therefore, made in the Supplementary Estimate to surrender the excesses of £3,700 and £4,000, respectively. This may be found half-way down page 110 of the Supplementary Estimate. This will result in our being entitled to recover £7,700 less than was expected from the Deposit Account, and this deficiency is shown at the bottom of page 111 of the Supplementary Estimate. The three provisions, C.I., C.2. and Z.2 therefore cancel one another out.
The money which has not been spent this year will be used for suitable projects next year, during which it is expected that the final balance of the Conditional Aid money will be used. The remainder of the shortfall of £990 is chiefly due to the fact that we have become entitled to less money than we expected under an arrangement with a firm in respect of plant provided by the Government during the war.
I have briefly covered all the items in this Supplementary Estimate. Except for the new provisions towards meeting the cost of compensation for scrapping excess capacity In the cotton industry, the other items represent very small increases over the original Estimate. If during the course of discussion any further information is sought, I shall hope to be able to furnish it when I come to reply.

Mr. J. T. Price: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes with the point on the ultimate cost of scrapping in the cotton indstry, I should like to recall to him that the President of the Board of Trade, in presenting last year what is now the Cotton Industry Act, gave as the best estimate that could be provided by his Department a sum of £30 million, which I had the pleasure of challenging during an interchange of remarks across the Floor.
It was later reported that £30 million was very much less than the actual sum which ultimately would be required. I am not clear from the Supplementary Estimate whether we have now reached the end of the story with a Supplementary Estimate of £1 million. I would be better pleased if the hon. Gentleman could give more information about what the final

figure will be when the operation is completed. I am far from satisfied that this is the end of the story.

Mr. Rodgers: Of course, it is not the end of the story. The Cotton Industry Act deals not only with the scrapping of excess capacity but also with the re-equipping and modernising of existing works, and the best estimate that we can give is still £30 million for the total scheme which will be spread over a five-year period.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: What was the figure of £10 million which my hon. Friend mentioned earlier?

Mr. Rodgers: The £10½ million which I mentioned in my speech refers to the amount of money which we think will be required for the scrapping of excess capacity only.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is it clear that this Supplementary Estimate brings us to the end of the story of the cost of scrapping?

Mr. Rodgers: As far as we can estimate—and there is still a short period to go for the completion of the scrapping of machines—£10½ million is the total amount that we expect will be required for that purpose.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Thornton: I want to address myself to Subhead A.15, "Assistance to the cotton industry (compensation payments)." I am sure that we are all grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the information which he has just given on the progress of the scheme to date. I hope that he will agree when I say that it is perhaps too early yet to measure the full impact and effect of scrapping, consequent upon the Cotton Industry Act, 1959.
As I understand, the £1 million which we are considering is only the first instalment of what the Parliamentary Secretary estimates will be eventually £10½ million. I take that to be a reduced estimate from the £11¼ million put up earlier by the Cotton Board.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Mr. J. Rodgers indicated assent.

Mr. Thornton: It is apparent that the amount of machinery entered into the scheme for scrapping exceeded all expectations, including those of the


Board of Trade and the Cotton Board. The minimum number of spinning spindles; laid down in the Orders put before us last year was 6 million, and that has been exceeded by almost exactly 100 per cent. The minimum laid down for doubling spindles was 400,000 and that has been exceeded by about 43 per cent. The minimum laid down in the scheme for looms was 45,000, and that has been exceeded by about 130 per cent.
Judging from the rather guarded estimate which he hinted at rather than stated, the present Minister of Education, who was then President of the Board of Trade, expected the cost to the Treasury of these scrapping provisions in the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, to run at between £6 million and £7 million. As I have indicated, the earlier estimate put up by the Cotton Board was £11¼ million, when it had collected all the details, and now the Parliamentary Secretary states that the best estimate that he can make today is £10½ million.
It appears to me, therefore, that the amount of machinery entered into these scrapping arrangements far exceeded expectations. Fifty per cent. of the spinning spindles which were in place in April last year are to be scrapped, 35 per cent. of the doubling spindles, and 40 per cent. of the looms. I am not complaining—because we can all be wise after the event—but it is apparent now that the terms of compensation offered were too generous.
I think that that is proved by the number of spindles and looms entered into the scheme, and I am informed that accountancy experts who had been consulted by various firms had estimated that for a firm to continue in the weaving business it would have to make a return on capital of between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. per annum for no fewer than three years to justify continued running as against closing down under the generous terms of these provisions.
That is something of which the Committee must take note, because in all probability this scheme, in one way or another, may be the pattern or the forerunner of other schemes that may follow in a changing industrial scene such as we have today.
Having regard to the extent of the scrapping, it would be foolish of us to ignore the fact that there is a big burden left on the truncated industry. Five million pounds, or £6 million, will have to be found for scrapping purposes by a levy on the firms that remain in the industry, and from £2 million to £3 million will have to be found by levy for purposes of compensation to redundant operatives under the agreement provided for under the Act.
I want to be quite frank with the Committee. I believe that this scheme is working better than I expected. It is working with less friction than I expected, but I would make it quite clear that my remarks at this stage are solely about the provisions and the working of the Orders in so far as they are concerned with closing down and scrapping. I shall have more to say, for purposes of comparison, about the effect of the compensation measures on the operatives.
I should certainly like to join the Parliamentary Secretary in complimenting the special committee of the Cotton Board and the very skilled administrative staff which it has, plus the seconded officers from the Board of Trade, on the good job which they are doing in this extraordinarily complex and, to a large extent, new undertaking. The scheme, from this point of view, is working tolerably well. It is certainly working very well for the directors and shareholders of the Lancashire textile mills which are scrapping machinery. There have been many "golden handshakes" of £5,000, £10,000, and even £20,000, without any condition that the recipients remain out of work.
I submit that it would be an interesting exercise to compare the total of unconditional severance pay—towards which this Committee will be contributing by the money voted tonight—for a few scores of directors and managers with the severance pay of tens of thousands of operatives. This would underline the unfair rewards of our private enterprise system even when aided by public funds. The shareholders also have done well, and will do well, because big disbursements are promised and are in store for the shareholders of the firms which are closing down under the scheme.
For good or for ill, the scheme is of great importance to Lancashire and will have a great impact on British industry. As I said earlier, it will establish a pattern for other older and contracting industries which, in the not distant future, will face some of the problems that the Lancashire textile industry has been facing for ten, twenty or thirty years. We have to face the fact that in a rapidly expanding industrial world, where there will be expansion of industry in some of the colonial and Commonwealth countries, and where we can envisage its expansion in most of the underdeveloped countries, this process of contraction will be repeated by certain other British industries. So the cotton industry scheme is probably a pilot one from which we should learn lessons about the future direction and organisation of industry generally.
As a result of public money being poured into the industry, not so much for scrapping purposes but for the re-equipment phases which will follow, sooner or later we shall have to insist on behalf of the taxpayer that if public funds are to assist private industry then there should be some return to public funds for the investments or loans or grants that are made. For instance, we may have to take equity shares in an industry where assistance is given in a way similar to that provided for by the Cotton Industry Act, 1959. I am sure that it is only a question of time before the public realises the essential fairness of that situation.
I again ask the Parliamentary Secretary to do all that lies within his power to ensure that abuses in the administration of the scheme are kept to a minimum. I have the fullest confidence in the special committee of the Cotton Board and in its fine staff, but I think that they should know that hon. Members are behind them in any efforts they make to prevent abuses in the disposal of public funds.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his consideration of cases which I have called to his attention from time to time, but I would point out that there are some dangers inherent in schemes of this kind. For example, there is the danger of firms cashing in by closing down and scrapping their old machines, then purchasing at a

much lower price secondhand even older machinery, starting up again, and thereby defeating the object of the Act and of the Orders under it, because the fundamental purpose of this scheme is to make a smaller, more compact and more efficient industry.
I am not suggesting that this type of abuse is widespread, but there are a number of cases, of which I have informed the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that the Cotton Board is watching the position closely. The scope of this activity is probably limited to the weaving section. I am not complaining when I point out to the Committee that the President of the Board of Trade, in Manchester, in discounting the allegations I made at that time, stated that the capital cost of starting up again would of itself preclude any widespread abuse.
The right hon. Gentleman's comment was valid in respect of the spinning section of the industry, where the capital cost of providing the physical form of the building, the power, and so on, is substantial. In the weaving section, however, the pattern can be somewhat different. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) knows well, in north-east Lancashire there is a system of room and power companies, where companies provide the building for the weaving shed and the power, and rent off partitioned sections of the factory to anyone who wants to start business. The capital cost involved in that case is small, mainly the cost of the weaving machines and installation. The building, the power and the heating is met by an annual rent and often on a very short lease.
I also ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied with the system of scrapping machinery. When these Orders were going through the House last year the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) said that there was a shortage of smashers, that is, of firms for smashing machinery. As I understand the system of smashing which has been applied in respect of looms, the practice to smash the sides of the looms and collapse the machine, and, in the case of the spinning section, to smash and destroy the spindles.
Is the Minister satisfied that this will prevent the later disposal of the collapsed


machines? If they get into the hands of secondhand textile machinery dealers, will it not be possible for these people, at a relatively small cost, to repair and re-erect the machines, making them available for further productive use?
That problem should be watched carefully. I would like to know if the Cotton Board has sufficient control over the movement of such machines to ensure that they are not put back into productive use, thereby defeating the object of this exercise It is a difficult problem of supervision, but if we are finding the money for this purpose the Committee is entitled to know that the operation is carried out fully, so that such machines are not subsequently repaired and put back into productive use.
I should also like the Committee to consider the rather complicated system of discount, standard and premium payments The discount and standard payments—I do not want to go too much into detail—can be assessed relatively easily from ascertainable facts, but the premium payments will present far more difficulty because a condition of the premium payments is that the firm goes completely out of business in all sections of the industry.
I provided the Parliamentary Secretary with details of a case which I had investigated, and I thank him for the close consideration that he gave to my representations, but I had to send for five sets of documents from the Registrar of Companies to trace who was the majority shareholder in the firms under consideration It appeared to me to have all the signs of a "fiddle" on the part of someone who wanted to get the premium payments and, presumably, go out of business, because after he had entered the scheme he transferred his interest to new companies which had been set up.
One of the new firms had restarted with secondhand machinery. It appeared that, since entering the scheme, the person concerned had transferred his shareholding in the business which was remaining in production to other members of his family. Apparently, the family was remaining in business both with the firm which had been in operation and a new firm which was starting up with secondhand machinery.
I am not suggesting that this is a form of abuse which is widespread. Indeed,

it may be that there are valid explanations for the process, and if so, I should be very glad to hear about them. However, I hope that the Cotton Board will feel that this Committee is fully behind the most thorough investigation of any of these possible abuses in connection with public funds.
There is a further point to which I would call the attention of the Committee. It has regard also to some of the other items which we are considering. I refer to cases where there is a large expenditure of public money, but no effective scrutiny by the House of Commons as to where the money goes. Through a Question to the President of the Board of Trade, I ascertained that these accounts will be subject to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but I understand that they will be laid before the House only as rather comprehensive financial statements.
In view of the growing amounts of public funds going to the aid of industry, I submit that the time has come when the provisions of the 1947 Act and other Acts should be altered to do away with the secrecy which prevents the House and the public knowing to which individuals the funds have been paid. I ask the hon. Gentleman to give serious consideration to this aspect. We ought to know who are the recipients of these funds, and if more publicity is given to the fact that the public can know who has received these sums of money, it will do more to prevent abuses than anything else.
I want now to say a few words about operatives' compensation, because this is not working so well. I do not know whether there is anything the hon. Gentleman can do to help, but there is very serious delay in the payments. I understand that most of the lump sum payments have been made, but there is very great delay in the weekly payments of compensation to persons who are still unemployed or have taken less remunerative employment. The purpose of the weekly payments is to assist persons through a difficult period, and if they cannot be made fairly promptly the purpose of paying compensation in weekly instalments is defeated.
I appreciate that the question of operatives' compensation is a very difficult one. To a large extent, it is breaking new ground, and I do not


underestimate the problems associated with it. There is much to be learned from the experience that we have had. There are undoubtedly many injustices. I do not want to make a constituency speech on the issue, but perhaps I might quote the case of a mill in my constituency which closed down on 17th April, six days before the appointed day. None of the operatives there will receive any compensation for loss of employment consequent upon the operation of the 1959 Act, but one can imagine their anger and feeling of injustice when they find that the employer will get compensation at discount rates for the machinery which is to be scrapped in that mill. That is obviously unjust, and it appears unjust to the operatives. There is no doubt about it that the directors and shareholders of the concern will get cash compensation, partly from public funds, for going out of business.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give attention to this point. It is manifestly unfair. I raised it while the Bill and the Orders were going through the House. I may be wrong, but my recollection is that the agreement reached between the trade unions and the employers for operatives' compensation was reached before the Orders were laid before Parliament. I believe that it was only when the Orders were laid before Parliament that anyone in the industry knew that a date other than 23rd April, 1959, could be the appointed day, and the appointed day for certain classes of machinery for compensation for scrapping is 1st January, 1956. If my supposition is correct, I think the trade unions might have taken a different attitude about the appointed day had they known that employers would be compensated in respect of machinery as far back as 1st January, 1956, in certain cases.
We still have the re-equipment proposals to come, of which this £1 million is only the first instalment. If the response to re-equipment is as enthusiastic as it has been to scrapping, the total cost of the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, will, I believe, be not the estimated £30 million, but more like £60 million. However, I have my doubts whether the enthusiasm for re-equipment will be quite as great as it has been for scrapping, because I feel sure that a far

bigger influence in determining whether a firm will re-equip than the 25 per cent. grant for which the Act provides will be the uncertainty about what will happen when the present voluntary agreements with Hong Kong, Pakistan and India run out at the end of next year.
Therefore, I anticipate that the main decisions on the re-equipment will not be taken until well into next year, when some feeling is gathered as to what will happen in the future with these unrestricted, duty-free imports from India, Pakistan, Hong Kong and, perhaps, other Commonwealth countries. If the re-equipment does not take place on a substantial scale, then the main purpose of this exercise will have been defeated and frustrated, and we shall be faced again in another five years with another proposal further to contract the industry.
This Measure is working out, as I see it, very expensively in terms of machinery actually put out of production. It is illuminating to see the figures of the amount of machinery that was already stopped on 23rd April, 1959, when the then President of the Board of trade made his first announcement that he was prepared to consider a scheme. As I work it out, comparing the machinery that will remain after this exercise is completed with the machinery that was actually running on 23rd April last year, then the cost of scrapping, of putting additional spindles out of operation, is in the region of £3 per spindle and £230 per loom. That is a very heavy cost.
Two hundred and thirty pounds per loom is perhaps just about the cost of a new, up-to-date automatic loom, so the exercise we are pursuing is very expensive. We should watch it carefully and see that at least we get value for money placed in this very hard-pressed industry.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) has said. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, the Board of Trade and the Cotton Board should be most careful to see that there are no abuses in this very expensive scheme. A great many industries are not receiving this privileged treatment and are watching this as interested spectators, not to mention the taxpayer. I hope my hon. Friend the


Parliamentary Secretary will take that seriously.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Farnworth said about the disclosure of the greatest possible amount of information, and particularly do I want to have the facts for the information we have had this afternoon. This is the first opportunity we have had to look at this Supplementary Estimate. The politest way I can describe it is by saying that it is being excessively coy.
The first page of the Estimate gives rates and the rough information, and then on the next page we have this extraordinary heading
Details of the foregoing.
It contains, opposite the sum of £999,990, as an explanation of the details:
Substantive provision to meet the cost of the service in 1959–60.
What good is that to this Committee in making up its mind, and in deciding the views it is to have as to whether this Estimate is justified or not? The next explanation we have is:
Additional provision required mainly to meet an agreed increase in the final cost of settlement of a claim.
This sort of thing has been going on for many years, and I suggest to my hon. Friend and others similarly placed that this is not adequate information to give to the House of Commons at a time when, in this Committee, it is being asked to approve Supplementary Estimates for a very considerable amount.
Then we have this sort of thing:
… cost of a possible agricultural mission to Venezuela ".
I do not wish to question it, or challenge the principle, but I do criticise very strongly the appalling vagueness of this information, not to mention its utter paucity.

Mr. S. Silverman: I agree absolutely.

Mr. Peyton: I do not want to be misunderstood in what I want to say. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary expressed the hope that the Committee would share the confidence which the Government feel in Lord Rochdale and the Cotton Board. All I want is some confidence. I want the Government to share their confidence with me and state on what grounds they feel confidence in

the Board. I have no grounds for feeling any other than confidence in the Board, but this is reinforcing the plea I have made for information.
My final point concerns the detailed figures with which we are now faced and are going to be faced with in the future. It has appeared today, for the first time as far as I know, that the scrapping policy will cost about 50 per cent. more than my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Sir D. Eccles) estimated at the time the scheme was introduced. I understood that the estimate he made for scrapping was £7 million.

Mr. Rodgers: I will try to clear up this point. I think my hon. Friend is quoting figures from the White Paper. The figures mentioned in that White Paper were minimum figures and it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham's estimate. We all expected that the figures quoted in the White Paper would be exceeded, as they have been.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I understand that the total sum which is expected to be spent on scrapping is £10½ million.

Mr. Rodgers: That is correct.

Mr. J. T. Price: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is asking a fair question: will the cost of scrapping be 50 per cent. in excess of the figure stated in the estimate quoted by the right hon. Member for Chippenham? On the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth just now, it will be almost double, and they have not been challenged by anybody.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), but the source of the answer I am seeking is my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the Government. I want to know, as does a great section of industry which faces very similar difficulties from very much the same sources. I cannot go into that now, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be very conscious of the difficulties facing the gloving industry for many years because of imports from Hong Kong. People in that sort of industry are anxious to know


what will be the total cost of this assistance to the textile industry. We are anxious to be furnished with the maximum amount of information throughout. I am rather horrified and disappointed by the incredible coyness of the document we have before us.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: My hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) said that he would not make a constituency speech, though I can see what the temptation to make one may well have been. I do not in any way criticise him for that decision, for, speaking from where he was, it was obviously his duty to deal with the broad aspects of the matter rather than with the local consequences and applications of it for which he is responsible as a Member.
I am not inhibited in that way, and I propose to make a constituency speech, because the quickest and clearest way in which the Committee can appreciate, and, indeed, ascertain the information which Members are very anxious to have accurately, is to see how the scheme works in a particular locality.
Hon. Members opposite have been laudably concerned—not merely in regard to these, but to other Estimates— to exercise their rights and duties as Members to see that the Committee does not part with large sums of money without knowing precisely what it is doing, why it is doing it and what will be the consequences of spending the money. That is not merely in accordance with the long traditions of the House; our work as a House of Commons, and especially as a Committee of Supply, cannot otherwise be done.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) used a very strong word. He was critical of the Minister in respect of the information given this afternoon, when he rightly said that this was the first hard information which had been communicated about the work on the scheme, and he also said that the figures were largely false.

Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member must not make that allegation. I was asking for further information. I have no evidence upon which to base such an allegation, nor the desire to make it.

Mr. Silverman: I do not wish to put anything into the hon. Member's mouth, and I am not making any allegations, but he used the word "falsity".

Mr. Peyton: No—I said "paucity".

Mr. Silverman: Then I apologise to the hon. Member. I made a slip—possibly a Freudian one. At any rate, I at once acquit him of having made an allegation against the Government that the information they had given was wrong, or, at any rate, that it was intentionally wrong. He was merely saying that the information given was scanty.
I wonder how much information the President of the Board of Trade has. I have heard him quote figures which, according to other sources of information, are clearly not in accordance with the facts. In our recent debate on this subject, in connection with the list of places which were to have the benefit of the Local Employment Bill when it becomes an Act, when the right hon. Gentleman was justifying his exclusion from that list of places the North-East Lancashire cotton belt and the cotton towns in the area, he said:
 The reasons why the cotton towns are not put on the list are crystal clear.
I ventured to say "No". Fairly enough, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
 I hope that in a moment they will be clear even to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne.
A few moments later my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth asked a precise question. He said:
Has the right hon. Gentleman taken fully into account the imminence of unemployment at 31st March, when many firms must close down under the cotton reorganisation scheme?
That is the scheme with which the Committee is now concerned. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
Absolutely, otherwise the figures I have given would give us more jobs being created than there are people unemployed, which would be absurd."'
That exchange arose out of a question I put after the President of the Board of Trade had given certain figures for the north-east Lancashire cotton belt. I said that he had been rather selective in picking out places in order to get an optimistic picture, and I went on:
Not a single one of those he has quoted is in the North-East Lancashire Development


Area, yet the whole of that area has been taken out of his list.
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
I was saving that one up for the hon. Gentleman. In the North-East Lancashire Development Area unemployment in January. 1959, was 41 per cent. and in January, 1960, it was 1·9 per cent.
I would ask the Committee to consider carefully the figures which the right hon. Gentleman then went on to give. He said:
The total number of unemployed on 23rd February last was 1,748. Jobs in prospect are up to 4.000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1960; Vol. 618, c. 221–2.]
It was the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the number of jobs in prospect was greater than the total number of unemployed which led my hon. Friend to intervene and, subsequently, led the right hon. Gentleman to explain that when he said that the unemployment figure was 1,748 and the jobs in prospect were up to 4,000, so that neither the unemployment figure nor the imminence of unemployment could be taken as serious, he had taken into account the number of people who were to be made redundant as a result of the measures for which the Committee is now being asked to provide the money.
When we consider whether or not we should provide the money we are entitled to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was basing his argument upon sound information. If we can carry out a great reorganisation scheme of this kind without causing a serious measure of additional unemployment hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will, naturally, take a very different view of the question whether the money ought to be provided than that which they would take if the money were being provided to reorganise in such a way as to bring about a serious new measure of unemployment.
When we consider whether or not this money should be granted it becomes extremely important to study the figures closely once more to see whether the right hon. Gentleman had his argument right, and whether the Parliamentary Secretary has given the right figures today. In the course of the debate to which I have referred I provided some figures. They were not my own. I had not made a private investigation of my own. I had gone to the town clerks of

each of the main towns concerned, and they had gone to the Cotton Board which, in turn, had gone to the Minister of Labour. To that extent, the figures that I quoted were the official figures, which I thought would be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman and which ought to have provided the basis of his hon. Friend's case today.
The right hon. Gentleman did not accept them. I want to remind the Committee what those figures were. I pointed out that on the information officially supplied by the Cotton Board notice had been given to close 63 weaving sheds in Nelson and Colne by 31st March, that is to say, 32 mills had given notice to close in Nelson and 31 in Colne, making a total of 63, which means about two-thirds of all the weaving sheds in Nelson and Colne together. There are about 100 left and now 63 are being closed by 31st March.
I pointed out again that on the official figures supplied that meant that in addition to the 1,100 weavers unemployed at 23rd February, by 31st March there would be an additional 2,300 weavers unemployed. I pointed out that the number of looms involved was 12,558 in Nelson and 9,218 in Colne, and if we had them together we get to within a hundred or two of 22,000 looms. If my hon. Friend's figure of £230 for the average compensation for scrapped looms is correct—

Mr. Thornton: I hope that what I have said on this point will not be misunderstood. There are 105,000 looms to be scrapped. Of that number, 75,000 were already stopped at 23rd April when the President of the Board of Trade made these remarks. If we divide the £7 million which it is estimated will go for scrapping looms by the figure of 105,000 we get £66 per loom. If we divide it by the lesser figure, that is, the effective number which have been taken out of production, it would be £230 per loom.

Mr. Silverman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I hope I have understood him correctly, and if I have what I said a minute or two ago is, broadly speaking, correct.

Mr. Thornton: If they were running looms.

Mr. Silverman: Yes, if they were running looms. I gave the actual figure of


how many of them were running looms and how many had already been stopped in the figures I quoted in the debate on 23rd February. The overwhelming bulk of the looms in question were still running on that date. Therefore, my hon. Friend's figure of £230 per loom applies if not to all the looms of which I have been speaking, at any rate, to the great majority.

Mr. Thornton: There must be no mistake about this. I was not suggesting that the employers will get £230 per loom scrapped. I suggested that on certain computations, which were not unreasonable computations, the cost to the Exchequer and the rest of the industry could be as high as £230 for each loom effectively taken out of action.

Mr. Silverman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for making it clear. But we all understand that in this debate we are not dealing with the financial advantage either to the employers or the manufacturers, on the one hand, or to the workers, on the other. We are dealing with the public money which is being expended and we are considering what we are getting for that money.
Therefore, while I am more than grateful to my hon. Friend for making clear the appropriate background against which the figures have to be considered, nevertheless it remains true that if we are to consider this matter from the point of view of the cost per loom to the Exchequer, by the time the running loom is scrapped, and if my hon. Friend is right, the figure is £230, in respect of the vast majority of 22,000 looms in those two towns alone.
That amounts to an expenditure of very nearly £5 million. To do what? To close down two-thirds of what is almost the only industry in the area, and, if the figures officially supplied are correct, to produce, in addition to the 1,100 made unemployed as a direct result of these schemes a month ago, an additional 2,300 unemployed, which makes a total of 3,400.
If hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—without any kind of political bias, or any primary intention of scoring political points, or making debating points against the Government— will consider those figures, they will realise that between 23rd February and

31st March we are to spend in all about £5 million to put another 2,300 weavers out of the only industry in which they have any skill. Perhaps it is not an over-statement to say that on those figures the reasons of the President of the Board of Trade for keeping Nelson and Colne out of his list of places to be assisted are very far from being crystal clear.
In case there has been any misunderstanding about it, immediately after the debate on 23rd February I sent a letter to the President of the Board of Trade which I had received from the Town Clerk of Nelson and upon which I had founded my argument. I also sent something else to the right hon. Gentleman. On that day I received, without having asked for it—unfortunately, I received it a day too late to enable me to make use of it in the debate—a letter from the Town Clerk of Colne. He had made his own independent inquiries and had reached very much the same result as had the Town Clerk of Nelson. As I had not been able to draw the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to those figures during the debate on 23rd February, I thought it only fair to give the right hon. Gentleman the benefit of them when they reached me, so I sent him that letter as well.
I have had an acknowledgement, but I have had no further communication from the President of the Board of Trade. For instance, I have not received any criticism of the figures. I have not received any denial of them. The right hon. Gentleman must know whether my figures are right or wrong. If they are wrong, I suggest—I hope that this is not too much to say—that the right hon. Gentleman is under a duty to say that they are wrong; to say in what degree they are wrong and to say why he comes to the conclusion that they are wrong. So far, we have had not a single word of criticism of these figures.
It must be borne in mind, as I said a few minutes ago, that these are very different figures from those which I quoted from the Minister's speech, especially in his answer to the intervention by my hon. Friend on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman said then, as the Committee will remember—dealing not with Nelson or Colne, not with Nelson and Colne but


with the whole of the north-east Lancashire development area, the so-called cotton belt—that after taking into account all the redundancy then existing and all the redundancy to be expected up to 31st March, there would be left a figure of 1,700, and alternative employment for 4,000.
There is some alternative employment in Nelson and Colne, certainly in Nelson. I have not denied that. I said so in my speech on 23rd February. We have been not unsuccessful in that respect. I will not say that it was due to private enterprise, because, of course, it was not private enterprise but municipal enterprise which was responsible; but without any assistance from the Government. We have been successful in bringing some new industry to Nelson; not so successful in the case of Colne. There was virtually nothing in Colne, nothing of any account. But in Nelson, at any rate, two especial industries have been brought in, for which we are extremely grateful. I am not grateful to the Government. They did nothing about it. It was done without their assistance.
In the case of the larger industry, the number of people so far employed is 100 and the number of people who will be employed when it is in full operation is 400, and it will be a year or two before it is in full operation. As I said, in Colne there is virtually nothing. Does the Committee really think that it is good, sound, national financial or economic policy to spend £5 million to bring about a position of that kind without any requirement that one single penny of the compensation paid—and I pay due regard to what my hon. Friend said, that it is not the employers who will get the £5 million—should be used to bring new industries into the area to take the place of the industries which are being compensated for being destroyed?
I cannot go into all that. This is a matter which Parliament has decided as a matter of policy. We are not entitled to deal with that now, and I am not attempting to do so. But what I am doing is this: I am putting it in this way so that the Committee shall have the proper facts before it when it decides whether this further money shall be granted to the Government to be used in this way.
My immediate object is to extract, if I can. information. I am not entitled to use the methods which the War Office says that it does not use, but only experiments with. I can only ask questions; I can only make speeches. There can be no kind of torture and no kind of brainwashing. Certainly, there ought not to be. It ought not to be necessary. These figures are known, and if the President of the Board of Trade does not know them yet he has the means of finding them out. He ought not to leave the Committee in ignorance as to what are the true facts, and I am certain that he would not wish voluntarily to mislead it.
If we are right that a fortnight from now there will be a couple of thousand additional unemployed in this area, is this imminent—a fortnight from now? Is it serious—this couple of thousand? If the answer to both those questions is "Yes," are the reasons crystal clear for denying them any assistance in getting alternative industries?
That is all that I wish to say. I do not know whether there are other hon. Members who wish to speak—I hope that there are. It is a most serious matter. This is the only occasion, so far as I know, when the House of Commons has committed itself to spending substantial sums of public money not to assist, not to produce or to expand, but to destroy; and it is only right that if we go on with this policy and provide the money for it we should be told with meticulous accuracy what are the facts and what are the consequences of our so doing.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: If I am in order, Mr. Hynd, I would prefer, in view of the Parliamentary Secretary's detailed explanation, not to move the Amendment which stands on the Order Paper in my name, although I have some questions to ask him. The Amendment is
Class VI, Vote 2 (Board of Trade (Assistance to Industry and Trading Services)) to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): It is not necessary for the hon. Member to move it.

Mr. Macmillan: The Parliamentary Secretary went into great detail on the figures of this Vote, although not apparently into sufficient detail as to the


position of Nelson and Colne under the Local Employment Bill. I think it is especially important that at this time and in this matter we should watch Government expenditure most closely.
The major part of this Vote is devoted to a sum required under the Cotton Act. Government spending at this moment is inevitably and, I think, rightly increasing. That to me makes it all the more important for hon. Members on the back benches to examine that expenditure in order to make quite sure that it is not being wasted administratively and not, as the hon. Member for Farn-worth (Mr. Thornton) said, the subject of abuse, but is spent in the most productive way and not spent where private money could be used as well. That is the reason why I originally put down this Amendment on the Order Paper. I wanted to draw attention to the item at the bottom of page 111 of the Estimates—Appropriations in Aid. That is something which is not easy to do by specifying details on the Order Paper.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary has given a great many facts and figures which I was seeking. This is not an important sum compared with the others with which we are dealing, but it is one of the many small sums which, added together, make an important item of Government expenditure on this and other Votes. We are, however, confined by the rules of order to this Vote, but an attempt to control and examine even such small sums has its effect on the administrative machine and on the temptation to expend too much if examination is not forthcoming. We have seen some effect from the Parliamentary Secretary's statement, in that we have had details which part of the object of this Motion was to secure.
These Appropriations in Aid, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, arose out of the expenditure of counterpart funds which were a condition of the grant by the American Government in 1953. I am still a little confused as to the accounting for it, although I think I now understand the reason for it appearing on both sides of the balance sheet, so to speak; in that it is not so much an expected saving in expenditure which is cancelled out by deficiency in the source of income; it is an expected saving

which enables money not to be drawn from funds available to meet a deficiency which did not arise.
I am still at a loss as to what this expenditure is. I see in the Estimates that it is described as coming from the Deposit Accounts, under the arrangements described in Cmd. 8776. In Cmd. 8776, in paragraph 6, under accounting arrangements:
The counterpart of the Conditional Aid received by the United Kingdom will be paid into the Special Account established under Article IV of the Economic Co-operation Agreement. Detailed expenditure on the schemes will be provided on Parliamentary Votes with equivalent credits from the Special Account … The revolving fund will be held in Deposit Accounts operated by the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries.
It is the account of the Board of Trade which concerns us now. These special schemes are provided for on Parliamentary Votes. Other special accounts are of the nature described by the Parliamentary Secretary, and one of the questions which I should like to ask him now is the extent to which they are continued. He indicated that the Design Centre and other arrangements under Subheads A2 and A6 were a hang-over of the expenditure of these counterpart funds.
In those days when the scheme was started it was obligatory on us to spend the money in this way. Now I understand from what the Parliamentary Secretary said it is no longer obligatory on us to do so; I should like to know whether we are still doing so. For the Advisory Service the level of expenditure was set at £457,000 for two or three years. There was the Expansion of Research into Factors Affecting the Efficiency of the National Economy and promotion of various studies which together accounted for £1 million over a period of two or three years. There is publicity, £178,000 over a period of two or three years. All these were running at that level. The first question I ask is the extent to which they are still running at that level and still being met by this sort of Vote in these Supplementary Estimates.
The only item under this counterpart arrangement which should still be continuing is the Loans to Industry to be met by the revolving fund, mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, of £1 million. It was stated in the White


Paper, Cmd. 8776, that there was no time limit, no period set, for this operation. All the other activities had a period set of two to three years. The Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that they have come to an end and these Estimates are concerned with the remnants, yet in these Estimates they are being met from the deposit account which, according to my reading of the original scheme and of Article IV of the Economic Co-operation Agreement, covered only the revolving fund out of which loans were to be paid to industry. Whether it is the account which is wrong or the fund which is wrong, I am not quite clear. I have no doubt there is some very simple explanation of this.
Apart from that, I think we should examine the extent to which we ought to continue such spending now that the obligation under the Mutual Aid Agreement no longer exists. It obviously is continuing; Votes under Subheads A.2 and A.6 indicate that. The Minister said it was chiefly for the British Productivity Council, the Institute of Management and this revolving fund was for loans to industry. Are these things really worth the amount the Government are spending on them? The sum for Target in this Vote is £5,250, but the publication of this magazine, I understand, is to run at a cost to the Treasury of £110,000. I am not quite clear to what period that refers. Speaking as a publisher, I only wish my firm could afford to publish such expensive publications at the taxpayers' expense.
What about advice to firms on how to reorganise on production techniques and other matters which I understand under the counterpart arrangement were staffed by existing business and research organisations and people under contract to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research? In the past, that was running at a rate of about £150 million a year. I understand they are included in the Supplementary Estimates. There is the further item for expansion of research, including research into incentives, restrictive practices and related efficiency of monopolistic enterprises, industrial fatigue problems, industrial relations, structure of trade associations and structure of trade unions. Is all that research still going on at the taxpayers'

expense or, now that the obligation has ended, has that come to an end?
Apart from the loans for the promotion of studies there is another point. Studies were being promoted in technological subjects at universities and technical colleges. I am not clear about the extent to which that is still carried on under Votes for the Board of Trade, but that I should think should belong to the Ministry of Education Vote. I am not in the least trying to suggest that encouragement of these studies was not necessary and that we should not give scholarships in management and so on, but I should like to know whether these funds are in operation, whether they are to continue, and whether they are still on the Board of Trade Vote or now come under the Ministry of Education.
There is also the question of loans to industry. Are we still having the short-term loans for re-equipment and reorganisation of plant which were initiated under these counterpart arrangements to increase production and productivity? I am not disputing the principle of loans, or indeed grants, to industry. On the other hand, there is a great difference—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Member say which item he is discussing in the Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. Macmillan: I am trying, Mr. Hynd, to discuss the Appropriations in Aid and recovery from the Deposit Accounts. I understand that the Deposit Account is what provides these loans to industry. In order to know where these recoveries should have come from but did not because they were not in fact needed, I am asking whether the account is still being used for this purpose, or whether it is all available to be met from other Votes arising, as it would in this case, under Subheads C1 and C2, Grants to the British Productivity Council and Miscellaneous Grants and Contributions.
Perhaps I had better leave that point and revert to the Cotton Act, which comes under Subhead A15. That is a grant for money spent to help the industry in a situation which is being created to some extent by Government policy in that we have decided not to enforce restrictions or quotas on cotton goods


from the Commonwealth or cheap producers but to help the industry to adjust itself. I should suggest that the sums under this Vote are perhaps more appropriate to a Conservative Government than the general distribution of short-term loans and grants to do a job which in my view industry could well do for itself.
I should quite understand if this expenditure continues because we are bound by the terms of the Benton and Moody Amendments to the Mutual Aid Agreement, which laid down the original terms on which the counterpart money was to be spent, but I understood from what the Parliamentary Secretary said that we are no longer bound by those Amendments. I should like a reassurance that this type of expenditure, started because of conditions imposed by the United States Government, is no longer being continued unnecessarily, as I think there is some indication, from what he said and from the Estimates, that it is being so continued; because of inertia in different departments, or for other reasons. I hope that when he replies the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some assurance on these points.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I was rather disturbed to hear the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) criticising, if I understood him aright, Vote A.6 under Part III of this Supplementary Estimate, on page 110:
British Productivity Council (Grant in Aid): Additional provision required to meet the Council's costs in assuming responsibility for the production of the publication 'Target' —£5,250.
That is additional to the £110,000 which the hon. Member mentioned in the original Estimate.
I beg of these new "hatchet men" not to go round chopping off flourishing and useful twigs and missing the big trees of expenditure which really need attention rather than these. I wish that we could have this attention to defence expenditure, for example, and the same team of economists keeping up a running gauntlet on those occasions. The publication Target is not only a useful one in general, but is much appreciated in the trade union movement.
The British Productivity Council is a joint body of representatives of industry and of the trade unions. The chairman of the British Productivity Council alternates between a trade unionist and an industrialist, to distribute the honours and to symbolise the truly co-operative nature of the Council. Is the hon. Member for Halifax saying that we are no longer interested in productivity, that it is a needless luxury in these days of an affluent society and an expansionist economy, and that we need not spend any more money in this direction?
I have been present at annual meetings of the Trades Union Congress for a number of years and have listened to the report of the chairman of the Productivity Committee of the General Council, which covers to a great extent the work of the British Productivity Council. It would be lamentable if the Government, on the representations made by the hon. Member for Halifax or by any other hon. Member opposite, were to cease publication of Target, which publicises new methods of productivity, indicates directions in which incentives may be employed and generally popularises the idea of higher productivity.
This, surely, is a purpose we want to foster and encourage. Co-operation between the trade unions and industry is indispensable if we are to increase our productivity. I therefore urge a word of caution, if no more, upon the enthusiasts on the benches opposite in selecting their targets for these attacks. It would be a disservice if this matter were to be pursued as a call to economy in Government expenditure.
I am not suggesting that any Government expenditure, however small, should be overlooked, or should be continued if it is no longer necessary—that is the way to extravagance and laxity of public administration—but I can assure the hon. Member from my knowledge and experience that this is something valuable to the trade union movement. It is certainly appreciated on both sides of industry and it would be a blow to the idea of joint co-operation on productivity if the Government were to cease this support for Target. It does not cost a great deal of money relatively. Welcome as it might be as a contract to the hon. Member's publishing firm, it is not a very large sum looked at in the context of the purpose which it is intended to serve.
I am glad that I came in at the right moment to hear this almost blasphemous criticism of a most valuable publication which circulates amongst trade unions and industrialists under the auspices of the British Productivity Council.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The hon. Member did not come in quite early enough. Had he come in a little earlier, he would have heard me say that because of the great present-day necessity for heavy Government expenditure on many items it was all the more essential to make sure that money was not wasted administratively, was not subject to abuse, was spent in the most productive way and was not spent where private money would serve.
I was merely looking at the total figures of the cost of producing Target and using certain private experiences which I have had to suggest that it might well be a rather extravagantly-produced magazine and that, possibly, a commercial venture might be able to introduce more rigid standards in production and produce it more cheaply than my hon. Friend's Department.

Mr. Houghton: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I heard all the words which he has repeated. I was present and listened to his speech, because I had been forewarned that an attack might be launched on this item in the Supplementary Estimates. So I made it my business to be here when hon. Members who might be raising this matter were rising in their places.
I have said what I want to say. I have defended the publication of Target. I believe that it still serves a useful purpose. Its withdrawal would create the impression amongst trade unionists, if not industrialists, that the Government were not quite so interested in productivity as they used to be. This, surely, is one of the conditions of our continued prosperity. This is basic to our prosperity and the viability of our economy. Nothing should be done to damage that in the eyes of those whose co-operation we all need if Britain is to be strong economically and if relations in industry in this direction are to be co-operative and fruitful.
Hon. Members opposite know that it is not easy always to get this joint co-operation on the shop floor, in the

factory and, in particular places, on productivity. Sometimes there is a suspicion on the part of workers that those who go in for the production committee in the factory are in a sense the boss's men, or are co-operating in raising productivity without at the same being assured that part of the profits of increased productivity will be distributed amongst those who work in the factory or in the industry concerned.
For all these reasons, I hope that the Committee will reject any attempt to disparage this magazine or to cut down the Supplementary Estimate which is before the Committee.

Mr. John Hall: Will the hon. Member address his mind to the argument which, I thought, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) made—that is, not that Target need necessarily be withdrawn, but that it is, perhaps, being extravagantly run. Does the hon. Member contend that it is not extravagantly run?

Mr. Houghton: I have no information as to the technical side of the production of this publication. I do not know the contract price for its publication, or anything about it in that sense. All I know is the usefulness of the production and, so it seems from the original Estimate and the Supplementary Estimate, the relative modesty of its cost. If hon. Members opposite are saying that they want to continue this publication, that they would not see it die, and that all they are concerned about is producing it more economically and making it bigger, better and cheaper, I understand what they are saying, but I did not gather that any such purpose lay behind the comments of the hon. Member for Halifax.

7.39 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: There are three sorts of subheads in these Estimates. The first are those which initiate expenditure arising out of fairly recent decisions of the House. The second are those which carry on and increase expenditure arising out of different acts of policy in the past, and on these I think that the Select Committee on Estimates and the Select Committee on Public Accounts are probably better vehicles for examination than this Committee assembled as


it is this evening. There is a third class of subhead, which I would call the old-fashioned expenditure, which is simply running on for some considerable time after its purpose has been achieved and, in some cases, years after examination by the Select Committees on Estimates or Public Accounts, as the case may be.
The Select Committee on Public Accounts looked at the Council of Industrial Design two years ago. I have not read its Report. I doubt if it was censorious, otherwise we would have had some Parliamentary occasion on it and it would have claimed our attention. The Committee probably decided that, on balance, it was a good idea to let the Council of Industrial Design run on to the extent of £180,000 a year.
It is in that kind of situation that the Committee can give a short sharp political judgment about aspects of Government expenditure which should be brought to a close because they have outlived their purpose. I should have thought that the present Government, who are supposed to be running Conservative theory in the country, good and pure after three most successful attempts to do so, would have concluded that where industry can do a job for itself and do it satisfactorily the Government should draw their horns in and let it carry on. This is an instance where that might be done, although we are talking of an additional sum of only £1,500.
I am not prepared to believe that the Government must tell industry what are standards of industrial design by aiding and abetting industry at the taxpayers' expense to put up a new industrial design centre in Glasgow. I should have thought that British industry—most highly gifted, most successful all over the world in the export trade, in the lead over countless countries in industrial techniques and "know-how"—could have done this kind of thing for itself.
I cannot understand how my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can allege the reverse. Has he someone in the Board of Trade who is a master designer, or who is clever at putting over show equipment or delineating the forms of industrial machinery, glassware, pottery and all the rest of it? Is there an artist in the Board of Trade who can

give superior advice to industry than industry can give itself? If there is, by all means should Government money be spent upon doing this kind of thing.
I do not believe that there is such a civil servant in the Board of Trade. I do not believe that the taxpayer can commission people from the sidelines, as it were—from the universities, from schools, and so on —in a better way than industry can itself commission such people to put this sort of thing through. This is an example of where a Conservative Government should say, "We cut this item of expenditure. We think that industry is better equipped to put up its own design centres in Glasgow or Wigan", or wherever they may ultimately be.

Mr. S. Silverman: Has the noble Lord seen those towns?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Of course, I have seen Glasgow and Wigan, and both are most excellent places. Has the hon. Gentleman any horror that he wants to exhibit in either of those places?

Mr. Silverman: If the noble Lord has seen Glasgow or Wigan he would not cite them as evidence of the ability of private industry to produce beautiful things.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Gentleman should not so insult those places. It will be a very grievous shock for the constituents of his hon. Friends to read in tomorrow morning's papers the strictures that he passes upon them. I am perfectly certain that Glasgow and Wigan can find industrialists who, in their own profession, can waltz away with designs and make themselves superior to anything that the rest of the world can produce. I do not think that there is anyone that the Government can commission who can do better than them.

Mr. J. T. Price: The noble Lord is putting a very fascinating argument before the Committee with a good deal of temperance at the moment, but in his strictures he admits one very important factor. When he refers to the Council of Industrial Design and to the British Productivity Council he forgets to include in his observations the fact that industry itself is a very large contributor to those bodies. Her Majesty's


Government are actuated by good will in making their contribution. They want to show that they appreciate the value of having some kind of institutions which will set a standard of decent aesthetic tastes, as contrasted with the gross commercial values which so often disfigure the countryside. The T.U.C. and industry itself finance these bodies, as well as the Government.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I take exactly the opposite point of view. If industry is so wealthy and is advancing these very large sums of money, that should be the reason for the Government withdrawing. If taxpayers' money is to be used for this sort of idea, it should be used to generate it, to put it on its feet.
I hate the cotton scheme. I dislike the Act which was passed last year. Nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety pounds are put down in the Vote we are now discussing to initiate the cotton scheme. Some of my hon. Friends and I do not like a policy of this sort of intervening in industry. However, a case can be made for saying that if the Government are to do anything they should initiate a scheme until industry can take up the slack and make it run for itself.
In the Council of Industrial Design grant in aid we have something which was, perhaps, applicable post-war, when industry was in a disastrous condition and needed some kind of prodding. I will come to that in a moment. It needed some prodding and it was necessary that the Government should allocate taxpayers' money to it. Now that we are, as the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) said, living in an affluent society, it is absurd to suppose that the Government need carry on with this sort of thing at the taxpayers' expense.
I do not think that we need carry on with A.6 either. I am not talking about a road. I am talking about the next subhead in the Vote, "British Productivity Council (Grant in Aid): £5,250". The activities of the Council have not been inquired into at any stage by the Select Committee on Estimates or the Select Committee on Public Accounts. Therefore, we have to do the work for them. This is a concept which had an American origin, so far as I understand it. The Americans said, "We will give you aid, provided that you get yourselves on your

feet". They did not like Socialism, planning and controls, or rationing. They did not like the depressed, queue-minded society which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite arranged for this country for six years after the end of the war.

Mr. J. T. Price: The noble Lord should not talk rubbish.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Americans said, "We will give you aid, provided that you set up a British Productivity Council, which will promote the idea of enterprise, success, private commerce, profit-making and all the rest of it."
The hon. Member for Sowerby has been won over to the idea that this was a most successful move by the Americans, because he says now that, living in an affluent society, with everything having been arranged for as the Americans originally wanted, this must carry on. He is repudiating the attitude of mind of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, who resisted the whole idea which the British Productivity Council was originally promoted to bring about.

Mr. Harold Wilson (Huyton): I was present throughout the negotiations in the period of which the noble Lord is speaking. I was present when the Agreement was signed. I knew everything which went on between the Americans and Sir Stafford Cripps on this question. The noble Lord's whole account tonight is a completely fanciful and imaginative account of what happened. The Americans laid down no such terms whatsoever in connection with aid. They never suggested anything about the British Productivity Council in relation to private enterprise and other things mentioned by the noble Lord. The Council arose out of certain wartime missions on coal and other things, and has been a highly successful thing for this country. It was not tied to the receipt of aid.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: May I correct the right hon. Gentleman on that point? I think that the right hon. Gentleman is confused between the Mutual Aid Act of 1948, and the arrangements, on which my noble Friend has based his statement, and which I mentioned in my own speech, which arise out of the arrangement to expend the counterpart fund derived from United States economic aid under


Section 9 (c) of the Mutual Security Act, 1952. The arrangements were embodied in an exchange of Notes between Mr. Aldrich and the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Anthony Eden, and the first paragraph of the White Paper describing this arrangement reads:
The United States Economic Co-operation Act of 1948 and Mutual Security Acts of 1951 and 1952 provide that 100 million dollars of the fund appropriated by Congress for the provision of aid may only be expended on certain conditions. The text of this legislation (known as the Benton and Moody Amendments) is given in Appendix B.
The Temporary Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making another speech.

Mr. Macmillan: I am only correcting the statement of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) that my noble Friend was in error. I am merely pointing out that the Benton and Moody Amendment starts off by saying:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress that this Act shall be administered in such a way as (1) to eliminate the barriers to, and provide the incentives for, a steadily increased participation of free private enterprise in developing the resources of foreign countries.
I think that my noble Friend is proved to be right.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I have not had the advantage of the intimate researches which my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) has been able to carry out, and I am most grateful to him for his detailed interruption on that point.
I am making the rather broader point that the tie-up between American aid and the contribution to the British Productivity Council can be seen from citing a single page of these Supplementary Estimates—page 110—on which we find, under Subhead C.1, for American aid, promotion of productivity, &c, and grant to the British Productivity Council, a total of £3,700. We have had the explanation given that that is set off by an Appropriation-in-Aid, but, at the bottom of the page, there is this proposal for an increased grant of £5,250 from the British Government to the British Productivity Council, so that, clearly, the American and British Governments are contributing to this organisation.
I say that that came out of the past, when the Americans thought that it would be a very good idea for us to get away from the liens of Socialism, and our low standard of existence, and try to put into operation some of the enterprise and zeal that they were successfully thrusting into the German economy. That is the kind of way in which this thing began, and it is has run on now long after we have got, except for certain unfortunate manifestations and relics of bygone days still perpetrated by Her Majesty's Government, a private enterprise and successful society largely formed on the model of the United States.
I think that this is another example, along with the previous one of the Council of Industrial Design, where a Tory Government should chop its head off and say, "We have had enough of that. Thank you very much for your past services in putting this country on its feet and aiding and abetting the high state of productivity that we now have. Let us now bring it to an end."

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I did not intend to intervene in this debate, and I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) a second time, because I thought that the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) had gone on rather longer than was normal in an intervention. That was why I did not reply to him when he sat down, because I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord still further. In fact, the intervention of the hon. Member for Halifax rather confirms my point that the noble Lord is in error.
The noble Lord said quite clearly what the purpose of the British Productivity Council was, and that it resulted from an American intervention conditional on American aid at a time when Americans felt that Socialism was going very far and all the rest of it— the usual stuff we get from the noble Lord—and that they felt that any aid which they gave during the period of the Labour Government should be made conditional on the British Productivity Council being tied to private enterprise and all the rest.
What the hon. Member for Halifax has been quoting was the subsequent


Agreement negotiated in 1952, when, as the Committee will recall, there had been a change of Government. I want to get on record that the noble Lord is wrong in suggesting that the American Government made the British Productivity Council a condition of the receipt of Marshall Aid at that time. The Marshall Aid proposal, which was made, as we all know, for quite different reasons, because of the cancellation of Lend-Lease in 1945, was one thing. The British Productivity Council was a proposal due to the fact that the Americans recognised that many of our industries were extremely backward and certain missions during the war—and I was concerned with one of the most famous of them concerning the coal industry—had shown that we had a lot to learn from them. Because of that, they suggested the British Productivity Council, and the late Sir Stafford Cripps accepted the proposal.
I well remember the debate in the House. There was trouble from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wood-ford (Sir W. Churchill) because Sir Stafford Cripps did not want the debate that day because he was going to Bristol. That had nothing to do with Marshall Aid, and I wanted to correct the noble Lord on that point. I do not dissent from the statement made by the hon. Member for Halifax on Marshall Aid.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. John Eden: I do not see the relevance of the intervention of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). Surely the question is not so much that we are discussing the history and origin of the British Productivity Council, but whether or not it is now able to finance its own operations. This is the question which we are asking ourselves when we are directing our scrutiny to Subhead A.6, concerning the work of the British Productivity Council, and, coupled with it, that of the Council of Industrial Design. Both are probably, or almost certainly, essential. We are not criticising the work or the value of the contribution which they make.
The point that I want to make on this subhead is rather why is it still necessary today for the taxpayer to underwrite their operations to the tune of a Supplementary Estimate of over £6,000. Why cannot

private enterprise and the trade union organisations contribute to the cost of this very worth while magazine, Target.

Mr. J. T. Price: I will give the hon. Gentleman the answer straight away if it will help him not to repeat his administrative ignorance on this matter.
The T.U.C. is making a contribution of £10,000, the Federation of British Industries makes a similar contribution, and the Confederation of British Employers is also making a large contribution. I believe that the same is true of the National Union of Manufacturers, so that this body is actually being financed from the very sources for which the hon. Gentleman is asking it should be. They are paying for it already.

Mr. Eden: I wish that they would pay for the whole thing. I have no hesitation in displaying my ignorance on questions like this, because that is what this debate is for—to ask the Government why certain items of expenditure are required, and why we are expected to vote for them.
In reply to the hon. Member for Wesl-houghton (Mr. J. T. Price), I would point out that the note to Subhead A.6 refers to
Additional provision required to meet the Council's costs in assuming responsibility for the production of the publication ' Target'.
What do the words "assuming respon-sibibility for the production" mean if they do not mean to foot the bill and pay for the cost of that production?
I hope that we have made it quite clear, even to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), who apparently is so touchy on a rather tender spot as a result of some of our investigations in this matter, that we are not criticising the work or contribution of Target itself, but that we want to get an answer to the question why the taxpayer should still contribute towards the cost of this production.

Mr. S. Silverman: But, in his argument, would the hon. Gentleman consider that the other bodies that contribute very much more to it and who bear the bulk of the cost, which is now admittedly common ground, all represent private productive interests? Is there not a public interest in this as well, and if we desire to have a say on behalf


of the public—not of the private organisations and bodies—is it not proper that we should pay for the right of having a say? Does not that give us an entry into it, and does it not also give the consumer and the ordinary public a right to be heard?

Mr. Eden: I do not agree that because everybody has an interest in anything which will assist in greater productivity one must necessarily, as a taxpayer, have to underwrite every aspect of an industry's operation—

Mr. Silverman: I did not say that.

Mr. Eden: That is what the hon. Gentleman is asking should happen in this case, and I do not think that it applies here. It certainly does not apply to the new Design Centre to be built in Glasgow. The Council of Industrial Design does excellent work, but why should it not be financed wholly out of industry, which benefits from its operation? If these things are considered so essential and useful to an industry as a whole, I do not see why that industry—employers, trade unionists or both in co-operation—cannot, out of its own resources, find the money necessary for these operations.
I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us a little more about how this figure of £999,990 was arrived at. It is not a question of the mystique of that figure, but the mystique of the £10. Were we able to discuss Vote 3 and Vote 4 of Class VI we would see that each requires a further Supplementary Estimate of £10. This curious figure of £10 is very convenient, and a good round sum, but if we had a further £10 here we would have a nice £1 million. Is the reason for this that £1 million would not look so good? Is this Estimate as good a guess as any other that my hon. Friend can give?
Perhaps my hon. Friend would also tell us a little more about the rotary kiln in Korea and the settlement of "a claim". I am grateful that my hon. Friend has referred to this particular operation—it is some kind of settlement with a contractor who constructed a rotary kiln in Korea—but are these things really necessary? Are they to go on for ever and, if they are to continue, what steps does my hon. Friend

intend to take closely to scrutinise these items before submitting them for our approval or rejection? I should like him to add to the explanation he has already given.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. J. Rodgers: This discussion has been extremely valuable, and I welcome the close attention that has been given to Supplementary Estimates involving what are, in some cases, very small amounts. It is very efficacious in public life that attention should be directed to payments, however small, from the public purse, and this debate has afforded an opportunity to provide information sometimes not available to hon. Members unless they ask the Department concerned for it. I must be brief —there are other Supplementary Estimates to be discussed—but I hope to answer a good proportion of the questions which have been addressed to me. However, they were very detailed questions, and those that I do not answer now I shall try to answer by writing to the hon. Members who asked them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) complained of the paucity and the meagreness of the details of the Supplementary Estimates and the vagueness of their presentation. I would refer him to the Supplementary Estimates of 1959–60, which were laid on 6th July, 1959, when very full explanations of the various subheads were given—

Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend quotes that example of the slightly better practice, but surely that adds strength to my point. Why on earth, on this occasion, has the Board of Trade gone back to such an intolerable state of coyness?

Mr. Rodgers: These are exactly the same items for which detailed explanations were given six months ago. In order to save printing and so on, we merely gave the short subheads on this occasion. The details are available in the July paper.
The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) has expert knowledge of the cotton industry, and we always listen to him with great respect. We also very much appreciate the moderation and objectivity with which he presents his case. There has been some discussion about exactly what are the amounts


that have to be paid out under the cotton reorganisation scheme. As I mentioned, our best estimate is about £30 million. That is obviously not an accurate figure, but our estimate of the cost of scrapping, re-equipment and re-organisation is roughly £30 million—

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that during the election campaign the then President of the Board of Trade, now Minister of Education, speaking in a cotton constituency and obviously trying to get the maximum publicity for what was being done, said that £30 million was the figure given to the House but that his estimate was between £50 million and £60 million, although he had not dared to tell the House that it would be as much as that or the House would not have voted the figure? Is he aware that during the election the Government were promising to spend £60 million, and, indeed, the Prime Minister in speeches that he made in cotton towns went far above £30 million?

Mr. Rodgers: It would not be relevant for me to enter into a detailed discussion on that, but in the Board of Trade we regard £30 million as the best estimate we can give. This estimate deals with £1 million, less £10. There is nothing sinister in the omission of £10. That was the Vote on Account, which one must have in order to draw on the following year's money. The present sum, plus the £10, makes up the £1 million required for scrapping payments in the current financial year.
The £10½ million is the cost to the Exchequer of scrapping machinery under the spinning doubling and weaving schemes. There may, of course, still be required an additional sum if the finishing scheme has to be provided for. Discussions are at present continuing between the Cotton Board and the finishing industry to decide whether the re-organisation scheme shall apply there also—

Mr. John Hall: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that payments of compensation under the Cotton Industry Act have led to a general shortage of supplies, with delivery dates from six to twelve months ahead?

Mr. Rodgers: I am aware of that question, but I do not think it is relevant to this debate.
The hon. Member for Farnworth asked whether the scrapping and the rates of payment were excessive. As I said in an intervention, the figures given in the scheme were the minima required for the whole scheme to come into operation. We fully expected that the figures quoted in the White Paper, which were the minimum figures which would lead to the operation of the scheme, would be exceeded, and they have been exceeded. But there are some people even now who maintain that we have not scrapped enough machinery and that even more capacity should be taken out of the industry. We accept the view of the Cotton Board, which is satisfied that the contraction of the industry is sufficient and that it is now at a size which can meet foreseeable demand through the introduction of a shift system and modern machinery.
The rates of compensation were fixed by the Cotton Board. They were approved by the Board of Trade, but after we had had expert and independent advice from Mr. Burney, a well-known accountant, who made an examination of all the circumstances. According to the best information we have, the payments of compensation are not excessive.
The hon. Member also asked whether we thought that the inspection method we have for the scrapping of machinery was adequate. He has put down a Question for answer tomorrow and, rather than delay the Committee, I would prefer to deal with the matter at Question Time tomorrow.
The hon. Member raised the question of possible abuses in the weaving section of the industry. We at the Board of Trade—and I know that the Cotton Board share what I am about to say— are grateful to him for the cases to which he has drawn our attention. I can assure him that the Cotton Board is as anxious as he is to avoid any abuses in the payment of compensation to firms in this, or any other section, who do not fulfil their obligation to cease to carry on business but carry it on in some cases, the hon. Member suggests, with second-hand machinery.

Mr. J. T. Price: Does it not seem to the hon. Member, looking back at things in retrospect, that this kind of transaction and set-up, in which public money is being poured out to some outside agency with no public control whatever, is a clear invitation to abuse of all kinds in an industry which is riddled with holding companies and the switching of commitments from one to another in a way which baffles even the most expert accountant? Does it not appear to the Government that they have made a mistake in these arrangements and that there will be abuses? Does he not realise that these cause the greatest anxiety in Manchester and other places where people talk about what is going on?

Mr. Rodgers: I assure the hon. Member that the Cotton Board will make the most thorough and deep-searching inquiry before any premium payments are made. Up to date no premium payments have been made. We can rely on the Cotton Board to do all that is humanly possible to see that there is no abuse and no trickery by firms seeking wrongly to extract these funds.

Mr. H. Wilson: Does the hon. Member realise what he is saying? The Committee is being asked to vote substantial sums of money. We have had evidence of abuses, and this has not been produced tonight for the first time but has been bandied about in responsible sections of the Press for about six months. The Minister said that he has listened to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth, and other agreeable and pleasant things like that. He said that the Cotton Board will no doubt take notice of it. But he is asking the Committee for this Supplementary Estimate After all that we have heard from him in the past few weeks, does the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) intend to vote this money which, on all the evidence so far available, is being spent in a way which lends itself to much abuse?

Mr. Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman is utterly wrong, because no premium payments have yet been made. There is no question that money has been paid out wrongly, because no premium payments have been made, and the Cotton Board will carry out investi-

gations, and be fully satisfied that the necessary conditions have been strictly fulfilled, before any moneys are paid out. While we are grateful to the hon. Member for Farnworth for bringing these cases to our attention there is no evidence that there have been abuses or that money has been wrongly paid out.

Mr. Thornton: These premium payments are a difficult proposition. They are made on the supposition that people go out of business. Presumably the supposition is that they go out of business permanently—not temporarily, until they get the money, and then come back. I suggest to him seriously that before premium payments are made, payments should be made at the standard rate and the payment of the difference between the standard rate and the premium rate should be delayed for two or three years to see whether the persons concerned satisfy the intention that they go out of business and remain out of business.

Mr. Rodgers: I will certainly consider that suggestion, but the hon. Member will agree that his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) is wrongly suggesting that payments have been made. The Cotton Board has made no premium payments yet and is making most searching inquiries into certain cases, some of which have been called to our attention by the hon. Member for Farnworth.

Mr. H. Wilson: The hon. Member is misleading the Committee. I did not say that any payments had been made. I heard him say that he had no knowledge of any payments having been made. But he is asking the Committee to vote a Supplementary Estimate in order to go into a scheme where these abuses could exist. I do not say that any money has been paid, but before the Committee can fairly be asked to approve this Estimate we want some more far-reaching guarantees against abuse than any we have yet been given by the Government.

Mr. Rodgers: The right hon. Gentleman sometimes exaggerates the kind of abuse which is inherent in this scheme or even potentially inherent in it. As has been said, the Comptroller and Auditor-General has access to all the figures of payments, and he can scrutinise the accounts. There are a great many safeguards in the scheme, into which it


would not be appropriate for me to go in any detail tonight.
The hon. Member for Farnworth raised a very important point that employers may receive the discount rate if they have been in business since April, 1956 whereas operatives receive compensation only if displaced after 23rd April, 1959. The purpose of the discount rate was fully explained to Parliament when the scheme was approved last July. Broadly speaking, it is payable in respect of machinery which was already idle or units which had already closed down on 24th April, 1959—or, in the case of weaving schemes, where only part of the looms in a weaving shed were being scrapped.
Firms are eligible only if they have been registered with the Cotton Board as carrying on business in the section after 24th April, 1956, and the Cotton Board has to be satisfied that the machinery in question could, on 24th April, 1959, be put into operation without undue difficulty or expense. It was necessary to provide for the elimination of such machinery since it would otherwise have remained capable of being brought back into production with reasonable ease and thus was as much a threat—as excess capacity—as was machinery which was still in operation. Moreover, firms might otherwise be able to scrap operating machinery and bring idle machinery back into production, thereby frustrating the scheme.
The Cotton Industry Act provided that the compensation arrangements for operatives had to be made by agreement between the unions and the employers in respect of loss of employment due to the elimination of excess capacity. The agreement between the unions and the employers provided that those eligible for compensation were operatives whose contract of employment had not been terminated prior to 23rd April, 1959. Employees who lost their employment before this date could hardly have been said to have done so as a result of the reorganisation scheme, and both sides of industry were no doubt conscious of the difficulties and anomalies which might arise by going back beyond this date. The essential point is that the arrangements for compensation of the operatives were left to be settled directly between both sides of the industry and the matter is not one in which the Government have now any power to intervene.
As for the application of the agreement to individual cases, both sides have set up an appeals board with an independent chairman (and two assessors, one from a union and one from the employers' side), for settling cases in which there may be difficulty or dispute. There seems to be adequate machinery to take care of the alleged abuses which the hon. Member suggested may arise in some of these compensation payments.

Mr. J. T. Price: Has the hon. Member given proper consideration to one point which emerges from this transaction? Time and time again in the House on other occasions there has been very strong criticism of the dangers of retrospective legislation, as it is called. Here we have a situation in which retrospection is applied three years back to 1956, in the case of machinery lying in mills which were not going concerns in the sense that they were in production, but when a plea is made on behalf of the workers who may have worked in these places the same principle, for some mysterious reason, cannot be allowed to apply. That is completely unethical and the House has a right to object to such a transaction.

Mr. Rodgers: If the hon. Gentleman were to study carefully the remarks I have just made on the subject, he would see that there is a difference between payments made for machinery, for the reasons I have just given, and payments to operatives who have lost their employment through the operation of the reorganisation scheme.

Mr. Thornton: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has covered my point satisfactorily. The case I mentioned—and it can be multiplied—was of a firm which closed down on 17th April, that is, six days before the appointed day, and the shareholders will get compensation for that machinery which is scrapped, but the operatives who lost their jobs six days before the appointed day get no compensation at all. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman can say, nothing I can say, can convince those operatives that that is just. It is unjust.

Mr. Rodgers: Of course, whenever an appointed date is introduced there are hard cases which fall just outside of it. I have given reasons why we wanted to get rid of excess capacity and why we


are willing to take the compensation for machinery back to 1956. But the same does not apply to operatives, though I admit that there may be hard cases, falling a week or two before the operation of the scheme and the announcement of the appointed day, of people who have lost their employment.

Mr. Thornton: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is not unreasonable for the operatives to feel, if there can be retrospective arrangements made beyond 23rd April and compensation for machinery, that for them, the operatives, there should be the same compensation arrangements?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that this is a point which ought to have been raised by the unions when negotiating the compensation arrangements with the employers.
I come to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). It would not, I think, be appropriate for me to go into a detailed discussion of the unemployment situation in his area, which is all too high, we admit, but I should like to try to assess correctly the figures which he bandied about at the beginning, and which the hon. Member for Farnworth also tried to put into proper perspective. The average rate of payment per loom scrapped is £66 of which £44 only falls on the Exchequer. The hon. Member mentioned a figure of £230 and multiplied it up for Nelson and Colne and got it astronomically high.

Mr. S. Silverman: I always understood that the amount paid was £66 on the average and that only about two-thirds of that fell on the Exchequer. What I was doing was applying in the case of my own constituency the same kind of analysis as my hon. Friend was applying over the whole field.

Mr. Rodgers: I hope that the figures I have given will be of value, for I am sure that the Committee would not like to mislead public opinion into accepting the figures which were originally mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne was quite right in the unemployment figures—so far as I know: I have not got them with me. The figures he quoted were accurate, but equally it is true that the figures we have

quoted to him are accurate, too. In the north east Lancashire development area, which includes Nelson and Colne and Burnley, in January, 1959, there were 4·1 per cent. unemployed. In February of this year the percentage was 2·3. There are just over 2,000 people unemployed in the north east Lancashire development area, and there are in fact already 4,000 jobs in prospect.
That is sufficient reason, I think, if any were wanted, why Nelson and Colne has not been included in the list of development districts so far announced. If the position were to deteriorate and we were to be convinced that there might be an imminent threat of unemployment—not just people losing their jobs but of their not being able to find other jobs—we would review the position immediately.

Mr. S. Silverman: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, and I should like to express my gratitude to him for now making it perfectly clear that the figures I gave on 23rd February and which I repeated today for my own constituency are correct. Since the Local Employment Bill does not deal with areas any more, but only with individual localities, will he now see to it that the President of the Board of Trade draws the right inferences from the figures in those localities when seeking to withdraw from them the benefits which other people may or may not be entitled to?

Mr. Rodgers: Of course my right hon. Friend, obviously, will consider this very carefully, but also bear in mind the travel to work provision. We do not only extend aid to other areas outside those designated, but equally, expect those in those areas to travel to work if it is provided in the immediate vicinity. That must be taken into account. That fact, was, under played by the hon. Gentleman.
I should like to say a word to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan). I agree with him that we should watch Government expenditure very carefully. He is quite right: there is no obligation on the Government at the moment to continue with services which were started with the assistance of American aid. It just so happens that the first to come up was the continuation of the magazine Target. It was decided that


it would be a good thing in the national interest that it should be continued. The revolving fund has now been wound up. The British Institute of Management, I think I am right in saying, now receives no public funds; it has exhausted Government aid. In fact, we are pursuing exactly the policy which my hon. Friend wishes us to do, that is, that as schemes come up for review we decide whether or not on grounds of efficiency they should be continued.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) for his intervention. Target is an excellent magazine, and it does an excellent job, which is very necessary.
I should like to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. I think it is a matter for correction, but I hope he will forgive me if it is not. He referred to Target as though it were a straight commercial proposition, extravagantly produced. The cost of producing it is not just that of a printing and distribution job. First of all, there is the collection of the case histories on which the publication is based, and which costs a lot of money. Then 15,000 copies are circulated free to trade unions whose co-operation it is essential to secure on the floor of the workshops of the country.
I believe the Government have made a right decision to continue with this publication. It is doing a useful job, and the taxpayers benefit from the arrangements, because if we had carried on independently of the British Productivity Council that would have cost the Government thousands of pounds more than this marriage of the existing publication and the British Productivity Council's journal. Therefore, I think we have looked after the taxpayers' money in the right and proper way in deciding to do what we have done.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South queried whether certain expenditure should be continued on the Council of Industrial Design and the Productivity Council. I have every sympathy with him in wanting to make economies, but I do not think he stressed or even sufficiently appreciated the job which the Council of Industrial Design, among others, is trying to do. I invite him to visit the Council in the Haymarket, to go round to see the job it is doing and discuss it with the

Director-General. I think that if he were to do that he would change his mind completely.
One point I would mention to him, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Eden), is that although it is true that a great many of these organisations which have been mentioned tonight receive Government funds, equally it is true that they receive very large sums indeed from other sources—private enterprise and the trade unions. For instance, while the Government make a subvention of £180,000 to the Council of Industrial Design, the Council's other sources of income account for no less than £131,500.
Other firms, and particularly small firms which are not members of the F.B.I. or the National Union of Manufacturers, can go to the Council of Industrial Design or the British Productivity Council and benefit from the work which these bodies do. It is an important aspect of their work that it is not so much the large firms which need their attention drawn to the importance of design or the improvement of productivity as the smaller or medium-sized firms which in many cases do not belong to these organised bodies.
As far as I can, I have dealt with all the points that have been made, but if on reading HANSARD tomorrow I find that I have omitted any I shall be only too happy to write to hon. Members. The debate has been very useful from our point of view at the Board of Trade and I hope that the Committee will now agree to the Vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,002,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the expenditure of the Board of Trade on assistance and subsidies to certain industries, and on trading and other services; subscriptions to international organisations and grants in aid.

CLASS V

Orders of the Day — Vote 5. National Health Service, England and Wales

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a Supplementary sum. not exceeding £23,586,640, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960. for the provision of


national health services for England and Wales and other services connected therewith, including payments to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, medical services for pensioners, etc., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September, 1939, certain training arrangements including certain grants in aid. the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, etc., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

8.30 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: On a point of order. I understand that it is customary for all the Votes to be taken at thirty minutes past nine o'clock. It is now thirty minutes past eight o'clock. Could you advise me, Mr. Arbuthnot, whether there will be any way in which a grievance can be raised after 9.30? Are we to be limited in this important debate to sixty minutes?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): All outstanding Votes will be taken at 9.30, as the hon. Member says, when he may record his vote.

8.33 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I think that I would discharge my duty of exposition to the Committee if I first gave a brief broad outline of the Supplementary Estimate and then considered in a little more detail the main items which comprise it.
The original estimate of the gross cost of the National Health Service in England and Wales was £617,900,000. Deducting Appropriations in Aid, there was an estimated Exchequer liability of £477,600,000. Now we expect the outturn to be £501,200,000. This leaves a gap of £23,600,000, or, to be more precise, the figure of £23,586,640, and that is the sum to be bridged by the Supplementary Estimate as a whole.
There are three main items, each over £1 million and two of them substantially more, which comprise the greater part of the Supplementary Estimate. These three items in order of magnitude are, first, a hospital revenue item of £13,800,000; secondly, an item for pharmaceutical services of £5,700,000; and, thirdly, an item in respect of the purchase of poliomyelitis vaccine of £1,600,000.
Before commenting on these three items, perhaps I should repeat the cautionary comment which I made last

year, that is to say, that many of these items relate to expenditure whose course is particularly difficult to predict. This Supplementary Estimate was prepared in January and represents the best estimate that could then be made. Because of the difficulty of prediction we cannot be certain even now that it prognosticates within narrow limits the expenditure which, in due course, will be found to have been incurred.
Now I will come to the first of my three main items, hospital revenue, that is to say, advances made to hospital boards on revenue account. This constitutes much the greatest item of expenditure in the National Health Service, in fact well over half of the gross total. Of this expenditure the greater proportion, well over 60 per cent., goes in wages and salaries for those who run our hospital service, and very glad we are of their devoted labours when sickness or the need for surgery takes us to hospital.
The relevant figures in respect of hospital revenue expenditure are these. Our basic Estimate was £381,138,000. Our revised Estimate is £394,913,000, an increase of £13,775,000. Now, £381 million of our original Estimate was comprised mainly as follows: salaries and wages £244 million; provisions £41½ million; drugs, dressings, appliances, and so on, £26 million, fuel, light and power £30 million. Obviously, the original Estimates were based on the cost current at the time when they were settled, but it was well understood that additional amounts would be made available to hospital authorities to meet increases in pay following from Whitley awards, and that adjustments would be made, if necessary, to meet changes in the prices of goods and services taking effect during the year.
I am happy to say that, so far as prices are concerned, there is a small reduction of £200,000, and, therefore, what, in effect, we are asking Parliament to do is to vote the additional money required to meet pay increases. Of those pay increases £200,000 represents minor awards to various grades of staff. The rest is made up as follows: nurses and midwives account for £10,900,000; administrative and clerical £1,700,000; professional and technical £600,000; domestic and ancillary £500,000. So the Committee will see that by far the


largest proportion of this item, which itself is the largest item in our Supplementary Estimate, is due to the increase in pay for nurses and midwives.
This results from bringing their pay into line with the relative rewards enjoyed in the community as a whole for broadly comparable work. It was, therefore, at once an act of justice and an act of policy, and I certainly make no apology for it, costly as it is; on the contrary, I am proud that this action has been taken during my term as Minister of Health.
I now come to the second main item, the pharmaceutical services. Here the basic Estimate was £60,173,000 and our revised Estimate is £65,857,000, leaving a gap of £5,684,000. This is a field in which precision in estimating is notoriously difficult to achieve due to the effects of epidemics, changes in prescribing practice and the introduction of new drugs. This part of the Supplementary Estimate is due both to an increase in the number of prescriptions and an increase in their average cost.
Taking first the number of prescriptions, the original Estimate for 1959–60 was framed in the autumn of 1958. At that time the Estimate was based on an expectation of 205 million prescriptions for the financial year. In the event, about 10½ million more prescriptions than had been expected had to be paid for in the first nine months of the financial year, largely due to the influenza epidemic of February and March last year. This seems to point to a total of 217 million prescriptions to be expected for the year, and my Supplementary Estimate is based on this figure.
It is always difficult to assess the number of prescriptions in advance, as we can see from the fluctuations which have taken place over the years in the number of prescriptions actually issued. In ten years they have, in fact, ranged between 202 million and 229 million a year, and the Committee will see that my expected figure of 217 million is about half way in this range; though there is always the hope that it may not, in the event, be as high as 217 million, particularly if we can survive this spring without a major epidemic.
Coming to the average cost of prescriptions, the original estimate was

6s. 8d., but now we think 6s. l0⅕d. will be nearer the mark. There has, of course, been a notable increase in the average cost of prescriptions over the years since the inception of the Service due to three main causes: first, the inflationary tendency over the decade; secondly, the increased quantities prescribed; and, thirdly, the introduction of new drugs. I am happy to say that the first of these has not, I think, contributed to this year's increase in cost. Nor probably has the second.
There is no doubt that the introduction of increasingly complex, and consequently costly, new drugs has been the predominant feature in this year's increase. But, of course, there are roundabouts as well as swings. There are the obvious social and humanitarian advantages derived from these new drugs. But, in addition to that, new remedies—the antibiotics, the corticosteroids, and the new cardiac remedies and so on—benefit the national economy as well as the individual well-being because they make it possible for people to be treated at home instead of having to go to hospital, and they shorten the duration of illness and promote the economic efficiency of the community thereby.
I have analysed and explained this item of the Supplementary Estimate, but I should perhaps make a short reference —because it is a matter in which hon. Members always take a keen interest—to the measures that we are taking to control the drug bill. These fall into three main categories: first, the avoidance of extravagance in prescription; secondly, the containment of the price of drugs; and, thirdly, the containment of dispensing costs.
Perhaps the most important recent development in the context of prescription has been the final Report of the Hinch-liffe Committee and the action we have taken on it. Obviously, I cannot deal in detail with this, but I can tell the Committee that action has been taken on practically all the recommendations, including the circularising of more information to doctors about the economic aspects of prescription of the drugs available.
I should like just to mention, in particular, the suggestion for a scheme of voluntary limitation by doctors of the quantities prescribed. On 29th January


last I sent out a special notice, previously agreed with the General Medical Services Committee of the B.M.A., in which the importance of limitation of quantities was prominently featured.
We continue to be much concerned with the price of drugs, and we are very anxious to keep them to a reasonable minimum for the benefit of the taxpayer. Cost investigation in 1955 established that profits for unbranded standard drugs were not unreasonable, and there is no reason to suppose that the position has changed since then. I think that in the field of standard drugs competition keeps prices reasonable, though, of course, I keep the position under review.
For proprietary preparations, we have, as the Committee knows, an agreement for price regulation. It applies to most proprietary preparations. It is now in the third year of its trial period, which ends in June, and we are in consequence reviewing it. It is a complex problem especially as the pharmaceutical industry is of considerable importance going beyond the provision of drugs for the Health Service. It has, for example, an excellent export record of more than £40 million last year.
There have over the past few years been some major advances in drugs, to which I have just referred, which have had tremendously important results. These advances have flowed from a substantial research programme conducted by the industry at its own expense, estimated at about £5 million last year.
Therefore, in view of all these factors, I think that our policy must have regard to two basic points: first, the desirability of obtaining drugs for the National Health Service at reasonable prices; and, secondly, providing conditions favourable to further research and development in the industry.
It is in this dual context that we are reviewing the voluntary price regulation scheme. So far as the containment of chemists costs are concerned, we had a pilot inquiry into the payment of chemists and, following that, are now carrying out a large-scale inquiry covering a range of nearly 1,000 standard drugs. The results of the first six months of the inquiry became available on 1st December and, after consultation with chemists, certain

price adjustments have now been introduced.
So, on the drug bill, I would say that we are in these various ways seeking to contain these costs and we shall certainly continue to do so, but we must not be so mesmerised by increases in costs that we overlook the great benefits conferred not only for the cure of disease, but in the promotion of health.
The third main item is the purchase of polio vaccine. Here we have required an additional £1,600,000, and, once again, this is money well spent. Last year, I told the Committee that we had made considerable strides with the vaccination of children, but I went on to say this:
Unfortunately, young adults, the 15 to 25s, who also figured in the extended programme which I announced in July, instead of showing the traditional impetuosity of youth, have been dragging their feet. I would, therefore, through the Committee tell them that they should now come forward at once in their own interests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Commons, 12th March. 1959; Vol. 601, c. 1468.]
What effect this exhortation would have had it is difficult to say. Probably it would not have been anything very dramatic. It was, however, beneficially reinforced in the following month by an unwelcome circumstance which made an impact on the minds of younger people far more vivid than any Ministerial or medical exhortation could hope to do.
An international footballer was struck down by this dread disease and cut off in the full flower of his splendid young manhood. The consequence was an immediate and emphatic increase in the rate of acceptance for young people. In February, 1959, before this tragic event, it was 500,000. By April, 1959, it had trebled to 1½ million. By the end of the year it was just under 2½ million. At the same time, 8½ million children have accepted vaccination and more than 6½ million people—children and adults— have had a third injection. That is, therefore, at the basis of our increased request to the Committee in respect of the purchase of polio vaccine.
I have endeavoured to give the Committee a full, fair and faithful account of the three main heads which comprise the great part of this Supplementary Estimate. The Committee is right to give detailed consideration to these matters,


a consideration which reflects the primary and traditional function of the House of Commons, rooted in the beginnings of Parliamentary history. I do not shrink from such examination. I welcome it and wish that we could have had longer for this examination, because I think that such examination will clearly show that this Supplementary Estimate, so far from being due to extravagance, reflects valuable results in terms of the health of the nation and the well-being of those who work for it.

8.49 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I am prepared to accept the Minister's explanation on every head of the Supplementary Estimates he has mentioned except the one dealing with pharma-ceuticals, and I propose to raise certain questions concerned with the Supplementary Estimate of £5,312,000, the additional sum required for the pharmaceutical services. I listened very carefully and was astonished that he did not deal with a number of matters which are closely concerned with this service. I was astonished that he forgot to mention the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which is a most important Report in this connection. This is not the first time I have questioned the increasing cost of drugs under the National Health Service and asked what action is being taken to halt it, and when. No reply has been given by the Minister this evening.
I would remind the Committee that on 7th May, 1956,I asked the then Minister of Health:
Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the statement of the Public Accounts Committee on this question of high prices of drugs, and, in view of the statement last week "—
that was the week before 7th May, 1956—
that the price of prescriptions had risen to 4s. 4d.. will he tell the House what he proposes to do about the matter?
Tonight the Minister told us that the original Estimate took into account an average cost of 6s. 8d. per prescription, but that the position has again changed, and he has to consider the sum of 6s. l0d. as the average cost of prescriptions in the future. On 7th May, 1956, the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said that he had submitted to the pharmaceutical industry certain criticisms of its proposals

and the industry is now reviewing the proposals in the light of those criticisms. That is what is happening at the moment."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 802.]
I shall show later that this Supplementary Estimate arises largely from the fact that the proposals mentioned in 1956 have proved ineffective, a submission which the Comptroller and Auditor General endorses.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that on 29th November, 1956, we prayed against the Regulations imposing a 1s. charge on each item in a prescription. We warned him that no savings would be effected and that the drug bill would increase because it would cause over-prescribing. I could hardly believe it when the Minister told us tonight that he had been instructing doctors to limit their prescribing. In 1956 his predecessor told us that the doctors were going to be given permission to over-prescribe. He even proposed that a quantity of drugs to cover a period of three months should be prescribed.
I do not like to say, "I told you so," but HANSARD will show that hon. Members on this side of the House uttered warnings again and again that if doctors were told to over-prescribe all our medicine cupboards would be filled with tablets, powders and ointments. We said that the instruction to over-prescribe would worsen the position. Furthermore, we warned the Minister that the high drug bill could, in part, be attributed to the cost of new and expensive drugs, but the most important cause would be the increased proportion of proprietary drugs. Tonight the Minister has told us that he is asking for this Supplementary Estimate precisely for that reason. In 1956, the proportion of proprietary drugs accounted for 36 per cent. of the drug bill. The Minister has not mentioned the present proportion, but I believe that it now stands at 70 per cent. of the drug bill. Since 1956, the same abuses have continued, the drug bill mounts and the cost of prescriptions increases. That is why we are faced with this Supplementary Estimate. The Minister has not told us what he intends to do to prevent the situation from worsening.
In 1958 the total number of prescriptions dispensed fell from 228 million to 224 million, but the total cost rose


from £68 million to £73 million. The average cost of prescriptions rose by about 10 per cent. from 4s. 4d. in May, 1956. Then it went up to 5s. 11½d

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): I must ask the right hon. Lady to confine her remarks to the Supplementary Estimate.

Dr. Summerskill: I am coming to that. The Minister gave the prices of drugs and I was about to mention the one he gave. But in order to relate the matter and to show the Committee how the Minister arrived at the new figure, I think it is in order to mention the other figures. You will find, Mr. Arbuthnot, that I shall stay in order, but so as to relate my remarks to a matter of this kind it is important that I show how the figures have increased.
From 5s. 11½d. it went to 6s. 6½d., and then the original estimate of 6s. 8d. Now, tonight, the Minister says the figure is 6s. l0d. We ask ourselves what it will be next year.
The Comptroller and Auditor General drew attention to the figure in his Report on the Civil Appropriation Accounts, 1959 and, of course, we must relate this Supplementary Estimate to that Report. In 1958 there was a continuing rise in the amount of proprietary preparations prescribed, the Report tells us. These accounted for over 70 per cent. of the cost of ingredients of all prescriptions dispensed by chemists under the National Health Service. The majority fell into categories classified by the Cohen Committee as not therapeutically superior to standard preparations.
In other words, according to this Report cheaper standard drugs would be equally effective. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that they would be better, because many of us know that they would not have the unfortunate side effects which results from some proprietary drugs which have never had adequate clinical trials in this country. That is why time after time during Question Time in the House I have asked the Minister when he was going to insist upon adequate clinical trials for these proprietary drugs which are flooding the market and being consumed by the innocent and ignorant people.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Has my right hon. Friend read the editorial in the British Medical Journal this week, which states that injections of a proprietary drug of iron and dextran intramuscularly injected has been shown conclusively to be carcinogenic in effect in animals, but it is still being used for human beings and is sold for such use?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes—

The Temporary Chairman: That is a matter which goes wide of the Supplementary Estimate.

Dr. Summerskill: I am sorry to have to disagree with you, Mr. Arbuthnot, but I propose to quote from that leading article. We are paying in this Estimate for the drug which was referred to by my hon. Friend. I have carefully read the leading article in the British Medical Journal. This drug is carcinogenic and it is still being prescribed to people although it is not being advertised. Surely we cannot ask the country to pay an extra £5 million for a carcinogenic? Surely that should be brought to the attention of the country?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Surely the right hon. Lady must accept that this drug is prescribed by medical people. The Minister does not prescribe the drug, although he may pay for it. This is a matter of medical prescription and the right hon. Lady should direct her criticism to the medical people and not to the Minister.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman must realise that the Minister—I am quite sure that he would not deny it— has a responsibility to the people of the country. If it is brought to his attention that a carcinogenic is being prescribed under the National Health Service to pregnant women and for those suffering from anaemia and osteoarthritis, and if the British Medical Journal draws attention to the fact in its leading article, surely that should be brought to the attention of the Committee whose duty it is to protect the public. I still cannot understand why the Minister has failed to report this to the Committee.
The Auditor-General refers to a report by Departmental accountants who made calculations from published accounts of forty-three pharmaceutical firms. The


accountants concluded that these companies' profits had been higher than those of general industry and had tended recently to increase when the rates for the latter had fallen. In particular, the profit rates of British subsidiaries of American concerns
had consistently been much higher than those of general industry".
The Auditor-General considers the results of the voluntary price regulation scheme which the Minister has mentioned and upon which he still appears to rely, to my astonishment, ineffective.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Until June.

Dr. Summerskill: The right hon. Gentleman keeps saying until June. The Minister has said that at Question Time month after month. He recognises that it has failed completely, but he tells us to wait until June. I have tried to be patient, but I find it very difficult.
The Auditor-General, in considering the results of the voluntary price regulation scheme, states that
the large proportion of drugs excluded from control because they are new—
What the Committee must recognise is that one of these drug firms can put a new drug on the market and charge anything he likes for it for three years.
and the high profits achieved cast doubts on the effectiveness of the scheme.
That I think is a masterly understatement of the Auditor-General. It is this scheme to which the Minister referred in answer to the Question which I read out to the House and which he uses now to counter probing questions from this side of the Committee on the cost of the drug bill, while year after year the National Health Service drug bill increases and the cost of prescriptions has risen at the expense of the British taxpayer. The revelations at the hearings of the United States Senate Anti-Trust and Monopoly Sub-Committee on the price of drugs have shocked public opinion in America.
Anticipating your interrupting me, Mr. Arbuthnot, and saying that it is out of order, I should like to tell the Committee precisely why I think that this is in order. The investigation in the United State of America is of special interest to the right hon. Gentleman's Department and to the Treasury because while the Senate sub-committee is investigating the activities of American firms, these

firms for the most part have established themselves in Britain and are adopting the same business methods here. In fact, a great part of this £5 million Supplementary Estimate, which the Committee is being asked to vote tonight, will go into the pockets of the American subsidiaries in this country.
In the United States, this business has become a sordid race after profits with the result that many drugs are now beyond the reach of those who need them most—the aged, the sick and the disabled. The Federal Trade Commission gives the industry's rate of profit as
the highest in any major manufacturing industry, and twice the general average.
The big manufacturers are also accused of charging identical prices and refusing to license new drugs to smaller firms which might undersell them. For instance, investigators said Schering, Merck & Co., Upjohn Co. and Charles Pfizer & Co.—

Mr. John Peyton: On a point of order. There is only a short time left for debate. Surely it cannot be in order for the right hon. Lady to go into details of the American pharmaceutical industry.

The Chairman: I think the right hon. Lady is trying to give the reasons for the increasing cost of drugs.

Dr. Summerskill: This is a very serious matter. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) will probably need some of these drugs. It is very important for it concerns the taxpayers' money. I am very sorry if hon. Members who spoke before me insisted on taking rather a long time. The point I am making is that these American companies which I am now mentioning all operate in this country and will share some of this Supplementary Estimate. Charles Pfizer & Co. for the last several years have charged identical prices for drugs used in treating arthritis. The Americans are not mealy-mouthed in this matter. The Arthritis and Rheumatism Foundation told the Sub-Committee:
Greedy quacks in the patent medicine business bilk arthritis sufferers of 250 million dollars a year …".
Again I emphasise that these three firms produce drugs in this country. The


Chairman of the Sub-Committee, a man we in this Committee always respect, Senator Estes Kefauver, said that the hearing had already shown the need for Congressional action. He accused Mr. John Connor, president of Mercks—and Mercks is established in this country— of veering away from the firm's long-proclaimed motto that:
Medicine is for the people and not profits.
The Senator investigators said that Upjohn and Company bought female sex hormones for 14 cents, a gram and sold to the druggists for 15 dollars a gram. One tranquilliser sold at 3950 dollars a thousand is sold by a small company for 2·65 dollars.
A third of the turnover, a very high proportion by the standards of most industries, is devoted to the promoters. The industry maintains a small army of "detail" men who march from doctor to doctor extolling the virtues of the 400 new drugs marketed annually. I have described to the House how doctors in this country are subjected to high-pressure salesmanship day after day in their consulting rooms. During the hearing the Justice Department said that two companies, Carter Products and American Home Products, were conspiring to rig the prices of tranquillisers and to monopolise the trade. Forty million dollars of mild tranquillisers were sold in 1958. The name of one is Carter's Miltown.
Does the Minister recall that on 29th November, 1956, I drew his attention to the fact that Carters were selling Miltown in this country at the expense of the British taxpayer at £6, later reduced to £4, for 250 tablets. Research workers of St. Thomas's Hospital examined Miltown and discovered that phenobarbitone, which sold at 2s. 8d. for 100 tablets, was equally effective. The reason the Minister has mentioned time after time is that this vast sum goes into research. The scientist who works in the laboratory does not enjoy these great profits. They are shared out among the parasites who infest this industry today. Has my language been too strong?
May I draw the attention of the Committee to the leader in the British Medical Journal of 16th January? That article was on "New Drugs for Depression." I am sure that hon. Members here are

slightly depressed at times—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I knew that would draw one hon. Member. I wonder whether there might be some drug which might lift that depression. In the British Medical Journal, referring to new drugs which are being widely used, the writer said:
So far comparatively little work has been published in Great Britain on these two groups of remedies. But this has not stopped manufacturers from indulging in intensive advertising here to try to persuade general practitioners, physicians and psychiatrists to use these drugs. P. G. Dally and W. Sargent recently drew attention in this Journal to their dangers if used too frequently by doctors who have only a manufacturer's over-enthusiastic leaflets as their guide to therapy. They predicted, for instance, that avoidable suicides would occur if the statements of some manufacturers that their preparations were as good as and could replace electro-convulsion therapy were taken too literally, and severely depressed patients were treated with them too long before being referred for convulsion therapy.
This is a shocking indictment of the profit-making methods of the drug houses. For the Minister again to come tonight and not to reveal their methods to this Committee, and not relate them to this Supplementary Estimate and the fact that the prescription cost keeps on soaring, is difficult to understand.
The Minister is subject to the greatest pressure from hon. Members behind him to allow private patients to receive free drugs. I can only say—I have no interest in this matter—that if another Supplementary Estimate of this size or larger were presented next year, I would not be surprised if the Minister were so stupid as to give way. I ask him to examine the pressure methods of the drug lobby in the United States and to relate them to the pressure to which he is now subjected.

The Chairman: Order. The right hon. Lady cannot pursue this argument.

Dr. Summerskill: I agree, Sir Gordon. I was going just a little wide. This is an important matter. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott) knows that this is factual—

Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: When the right hon. Lady refers to these American drugs and others, would she tell us how much of the £5 million refers to drugs of which she is speaking? Is it £100 or £1,000?


The right hon. Lady should give some idea of whether she is building castles on the tops of moleheaps.

Dr. Summerskill: I am surprised that the hon. and gallant Member is not being honest in this matter and is trying to raise a debating point. I should have thought that his scientific education would have led him to be honest. He knows perfectly well that nobody can say precisely which drugs people in this country have consumed. He can only analyse the situation broadly on the figures which are before the Committee tonight, as I am doing.
I ask the Minister to get a copy of M.I.M.S., the Monthly Index of Medical Specialties. This will inform him of the extent of what he has described tonight as the sale of proprietary drugs. This Monthly Index of Medical Specialties has been compiled by a shrewd American and embraces hundreds of proprietary drugs. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon has asked me which of these drugs are being consumed. Perhaps he would like to read this document and inform himself. The first few pages give lists of new drugs produced this month; it is a monthly publication. Some of them read like a witch's brew.
I am sorry to tell the Committee that in these first pages is the name of Upjohn of England, Sussex—the firm of Upjohn in the United States which was called to give evidence before the Senate Committee. Here is its name with its new drugs for this month. Then, Merck, Sharp and Dohme, of Hertfordshire, the same people who were called to give evidence before the Senate Committee. There are many familiar names here. The Minister now justifies the prescribing of these proprietary drugs and the colossal expense in the name of freedom for the doctor. I am sure that there are other hon. Members who will support him in that.
I at this stage—I have never said this before—challenge the validity of that argument. The patient's welfare should be the first consideration. I have already quoted the B.M.J. and the manner in which drugs are prescribed for depressed people. These expensive drugs are put on the market without clinical trials, and very few doctors know their real therapeutic value. Is it in the interests of the miserable, unhappy patient that this kind of freedom should be exercised.

Lord Balniel: On a point of order. Sir Gordon, I am sure it is your wish, as always, to protect the interests of back benchers in a debate. It is clear that in this debate, after the charges which are being made, my right hon. Friend the Minister will wish to wind up. If that is the case, no back bencher will have any chance of intervening on Estimates of over £23 million. May I ask if you can help us?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order for me.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman should have entered the Chamber before and spoken to his hon. Friends who have taken all the time. He himself said that this is a very important debate. That is why I am devoting myself to this point.
The defence for this is that the doctor should have freedom. I challenge the Minister on that. In the British Medical Journal of 12th March there is this article:
Carcinogenic risks of Iron-Dextran. It has been observed that sarcomas "—
that is a form of cancer—
developed in the rat at the site of intramuscular injection of the iron dextran in 'Imferon' manufactured by Bengers. This preparation has been used for some years in cases of iron deficiency, including those of pregnancy and rheumatoid arthritis.
We understand that the product is no longer being advertised in Great Britain, though it continues to be sold and prescribed. Surely this solution is not only unsatisfactory and illogical, but also dangerous from the point of view of the producers themselves? We cannot affirm the hazard to man, let alone measure it … But the existing evidence is certainly sufficient to warrant, and indeed to demand, its speedy withdrawal from any kind of general use by man.
This preparation, believed to be a carcinogenic, continues to be sold and prescribed in the name of freedom. Again I say that the doctors should be controlled and this should not be allowed to continue.
The Minister mentioned to the House that doctors are given some instruction on how to prescribe. Has he seen the document I now hold in my hand? This is what he bases his argument on tonight —this flimsy little thing called "Pre-scriber's Notes", which gets absolutely lost in the vast amount of advertisements and leaflets which reach doctors. I do not know how many busy doctors relate


the information in here to the vast number of drugs. Obviously it makes no contribution to the problem.
Lastly, has not the time come to examine the prescribing of the specialists? Some of them are asked by the drug houses, in return for a suitable remuneration, to test various preparations. It is remarkable how a consultant then becomes prejudiced in favour of one firm. The drug bill of the hospitals has become so high that it was decided to prescribe only for one month for outpatients and then let the general practitioner continue on E.C.10. This of course was ingenious and the drug industry did not suffer.
Will the Minister listen to these figures, because I think they are absolutely correct. In hospitals the antibiotic bill accounts for 25 per cent. of the drug bill. I believe that 50 per cent. of the antibiotics belong to the Tetracycline group. I have here the cost from one hospital of antibiotics for the last six months for 500 acute general cases. The cost was £3,474 16s. 7d. Tetracycline accounted for £1,593 1s. 4d. of this. Could we know whether Tetracycline prices are coming down?
The next expensive group is corti-costeroids. The six months' total for these at the same hospital was £4,375. The price of this was held until material was brought in from Italy a year ago, when the American manufacturers were compelled to cut the price by 50 per cent. As might have been expected, a number of new modifications are being introduced, but clinicians claim that their advantages are not very great. I should like to know, if the price is doubled or trebled, what is being done about it.
Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Good; one never succeeds in this House unless one is able to provoke someone on the benches opposite. I have learnt that in this House. What does the Minister propose to do in view of the failure of the voluntary price regulation scheme and the widespread sale of a large number of high-priced drugs which have not been subject to adequate clinical trial? What does he propose to do in order to protect the patient and the taxpayer?
You have been very patient, Sir Gordon, and so have the Committee, ex-

cept for one or two hon. Members, but this is a serious matter which concerns not only the sick and the disabled, but healthy people, depressed people and people who are inclined to take a drug feeling that it might help them in their work. This matter must be ventilated, and I consider that it is scandalous that it has been hushed up over the years. The Minister has it in his power to take action to relieve the minds of many hon. Members and doctors who have been concerned with this problem.

9.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): I feel that I must apologise to all those hon. Members who, I know, would have liked to have taken part in this debate. We have a limited amount of time, and the right hon. Lady he Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) has taken thirty-five minutes out of it, so that if I am to answer any of the numerous points she made I must deal with them now.

Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order. Was it in order, Sir Gordon, for the other two debates to take up practically the whole of the evening, with the result that the Scottish Vote is not even going to get a nod in its passage?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Miss Pitt: The right hon. Lady made a complaint about a drug manufactured by Benger's and used in the treatment of anaemia. I must say at once that this particular drug was subjected to extensive animal tests and that when it appeared safe, it was released for clinical use. Over the past five years, an enormous number of patients have been treated in this way, and apart from a local staining reaction at the site of injection, no side effects or toxic reactions have been reported.
There have been a number of investigations subsequently on animals by other doctors, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) rightly pointed out, these have used most massive doses, and proportionately far higher than those ever likely to be used clinically on humans. In any event, this carcinogenicity seen in


animals will not necessarily be followed in human subjects, and it remains simply as a warning.
The doctors have been given this warning in the medical Press, so that few can be unaware of it. It must be left to the practitioners in each case to assess the benefits and conceivable risks, and to decide for themselves whether to embark on such treatment.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)rose—

Miss Pitt: I am sorry; I am not prepared to give way.
The right hon. Lady went on to make a number of points, and, in particular, she said that my right hon. and learned Friend has at times advised the doctors that they may prescribe generously for their patients, and is now asking for a limitation.
As to limitation of quantities, the Hinchliffe Report recommended that there should be provision for exceptions in chronic and particular cases. The previous encouragement to doctors to prescribe reasonable quantities related to suitable cases in long-term or chronic illness, where the need for drugs for a long period could be foreseen.
Turning to prices and U.S.A. manufacturers, our information suggests that for many of the most important drugs, prices in the United States are about twice as much as those charged in Britain by the American subsidiaries. My right hon. Friend is, of course, interested in the reports of the investigations which, as the right hon. Lady says, are now being made by the American Senate Sub-Committee, the Senate Judicial Committee and the Federal Trade Commission. We will take them into consideration, but it is clearly necessary to have full information not only of the charges made against the drug firms, but also of their replies to those charges.
I want to stress that the American firms of which the right hon. Lady was so critical help considerably both in the production of our drugs and in our exports. The industry comprises a substantial number of firms of varying size, and includes the British-based subsidiaries of United States and Swiss firms. Through the activities of these firms our industry has benefited from the very considerable research efforts in the United

States of America and Switzerland. As I say, the United States firms have made a major contribution to our exports.
The right hon. Lady said that Pre-scriber's Notes really gave no information to doctors, and suggested that they were of little value. In fact, the form of Prescriber's Notes has been agreed with the British Medical Association as being the most likely to be effective, or read by the doctors. The right hon. Lady also mentioned the cost of a drug called tetracycline. I am informed that last May there was a reduction of 10 per cent. in the price.
I had prepared a long reply to the debate, and in the course of it I would certainly have been able to answer the right hon. Lady's criticism that no action had been taken in the matter of the drug bill and, in particular, the proprietary medicines. My right hon. and learned Friend has explained the reasons for the increased expenditure on the pharmaceutical service, and the active steps being taken to control the drug bill.
Following the Hinchliffe Committee's Report, there was a suggestion to doctors for voluntary limitation on quantities prescribed together with circulation of more information to doctors about the cost of the various drugs. Other measures designed to make doctors more cost conscious include the regular supply of statements about their own prescribing costs compared with those of other doctors, and visits by the Minister's regional medical officers, of which there were between 900 and 1,000 in 1959. Action has also been taken on other recommendations designed to secure economy in the drug bill. Had there been time, I would have given a long list of the actions being taken.
The drug bill is not solely a matter of avoiding extravagance in prescribing. There is also the question of the price to be paid for the drugs, and we are very much concerned with this aspect. For proprietary preparations there is a scheme of voluntary price regulation, agreed with the manufacturers, which will shortly reach the end of its three-year trial period. This voluntary price regulation has produced a considerable number of price reductions—about 300. It has, we believe, helped to produce a climate of price restraint. It is a voluntary scheme, and has not inhibited


price competition or prevented price reductions by individual manufacturers who feel able to make them as individual research and development costs are recovered.
For example, during the last two years prices of corticosteroids have been reduced by 30 per cent. without any prompting—

It being half-past Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply), to put the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £23,586,640, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for the provision of national health services for England and Wales and other services connected therewith, including payments to Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man, medical services for pensioners, etc., disabled as a result of war, or of service in the Armed Forces after the 2nd day of September. 1939, certain training arrangements including certain grants in aid,

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60


That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,000,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year.


Schedule




Sums not exceeding




Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid




£
£


Vote


1.
Pay, etc., of the Army
4,640,000
*—700,000


2.
Reserve Forces, Territorial Army, Home Guard and Cadet Forces
1,160,000
*—80,000


3.
Salaries, wages etc.
330,000
—


4.
Civilians
760,000
*—140,000


5.
Movements
70,000
700,000


6.
Supplies, etc.
240,000
*—270,000


7.
Stores
Cr. 3,500,000
—


8.
Works, Buildings and Lands
Cr. 1,570,000
—


9.
Miscellaneous Effective Service
300,000
—


10.
Non-Effective Services
1,570,000
30,000


11.
Additional Married Quarters
—
*—460,000


Total, Army (Supplementary) 1959–60
£4,000,000
*—£920,000


* Deficit.

Question put and agreed to.

the purchase of appliances, equipment, stores, etc., necessary for the services, and certain expenses in connection with civil defence.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts outstanding in such Estimates for the Army for the coming financial year as have been put down on at least one previous day for consideration on an allotted day, and the total amounts of the outstanding Estimates supplementary to those of the current financial year as have been presented seven clear days, be granted for the Services defined in those Estimates and Supplementary Estimates.

ARMY ESTIMATES. 1960–61

That a sum. not exceeding £39,990,100, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during th year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, for expenditure in respect of Army Services, viz.:

Vote
£


10.
Non-Effective Services
39,990,000


11.
Additional Married Quarters
100




£39,990,100

Question put and agreed to

ARMY

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES ESTIMATE, 1960–61

That a sum, not exceeding £7,400,000, be granted to Her Majesty, for the expenses of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

Question put and agreed to.

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

That a further Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided for the expenses of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories.

Question put and agreed to.

WAR OFFICE PURCHASING (REPAYMENT) SERVICES ESTIMATE, 1960–61

That a sum. not exceeding £100, be granted to Her Majesty, for expenditure incurred by the War Office on the supply of munitions, common-user and other articles for the Government service, and on miscellaneous supply, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961.

Question put and agreed to.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1959–60

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £44,633,732, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, for expenditure in respect of the following Supplementary Estimates, viz.: —

CIVIL ESTIMATES

CLASS I




£


1.
House of Lords 
15,182


4.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments
192,500


6.
Charity Commission
8,482


7.
Civil Service Commission
47,092


8.
Crown Estate Office
8,049


10.
Friendly Societies Registry 
10,615


11.
Government Actuary
10


15.
National Debt Office
10


17.
Public Record Office
10


21.
Tithe Redemption Commission
10


22B.
Civil Service Remuneration
1,558,600


24.
Scottish Record Office
10


CLASS II


1.
Foreign Service
525,285


2.
Foreign Office Grants and Services
788,900


4.
Commonwealth Relations Office
10


6.
Oversea Settlement 
10


7.
Colonial Office
73,000

Question put and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1959–60

That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1960, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry

of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1960, the sum of £82,026,032 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.— [Sir E. Boyle.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1961, the sum of £2,223,676,200 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. —[Sir E. Boyle.]

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I had hoped that the Minister would have spoken on the Bill on this Motion for Second Reading, because it is a very important Bill. Parliamentary counsel, appearing before the Joint Committee, described it as being the biggest Bill which he had presented, at any rate in the last ten years. There are certain points which arise even within the very strict rules about discussing consolidation—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): As the hon. Member knows, we can discuss now only whether the law should be consolidated or not.

Mr. Benn: With very great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it was to that point that I proposed to turn the attention of the House, because in the Committee, at which certain of my hon. Friends were present, this Bill raised very interesting points of law, within the interpretation of consolidation, and it raises a question which remains, and that is, whether it is desirable to consolidate the law within a few weeks of the presentation of a new road traffic Bill promised by the Minister of Transport. Indeed, although I have not gone back over the precedents, I cannot think of a parallel to this, for the Bill which is now before the House to consolidate the law is intended to receive the Royal Assent, and then not to come into force till September, by which time, the Minister has assured the House, there will be considerable amendments in the law affecting road traffic.
Before I come to that, I want to come to some of the points which arise out of the Joint Committee's Report and out of points of interrogation by Parliamentary counsel. First of all, there is the question of traffic areas. In the primary Acts which we are seeking to consolidate by this Bill, there are references to many different traffic areas, and for the first time in a road transport Bill the provision for areas is to be laid down by signed maps. I think that there are three copies—one to be available in the

Ministry of Transport, one to be available in the House of Commons, and, I think, one to be available in the House of Lords. It means that if the Minister varies traffic areas, as he is very likely to do in the next few years, hon. Members will be called upon to vote in the House on an affirmative Resolution without having before them in verbal form the amendments which are proposed to be made. Although Parliamentary counsel, presenting this proposal to the Committee, said there were precedents for it in certain circumstances, there is, as far as I can make out, no precedent for the House discussing an alteration of a map which is not to be presented to the House and will not, therefore, be available in debate for hon. Members to refer to.
That is the first point. The second point is that the change, which is alleged to be only one of consolidation, I think raises a matter of principle which it is proper to raise before the House at this stage. It is referred to in the Report of the Committee. I think hon. Members will have the Report. It is the proposal to consolidate the law as it concerns the liability presumably of innkeepers who are involved in abetting people to be drunk in charge. This is a point of substance which I think arises from the consolidation.
As I understand it, at the moment the position is that a man who aids and abets a man to drive drunkenly is not liable to disqualification, but if a man aids and abets someone to be drunk in charge he is liable, as a man aiding and abetting such a situation, to loss of his licence. Parliamentary counsel, in considering these provisions, described aiding and abetting someone to be drunk in charge as a lesser offence than aiding and abetting a man to drive while drunk, and, therefore, having come to the conclusion that it was a lesser offence, recommended that there should not be under this consolidation liability to disqualification from a licence for the innkeeper. I must say that if we consider the practical effect of this it means that in the future, if this Consolidation Bill becomes law, an innkeeper who serves a drink to a man who has clearly had too much to drink will no longer be liable himself to lose his licence.
This is a very curious provision of the law. I did not even know it existed


until I came to read this section of the Report, but it seems to me of particular importance. Now that drunken driving is very much in the public mind and very relevant to the road casualty figures, it is very important that a Consolidation Bill should not appear to take away from a landlord the responsibility for seeing that these people whom he serves in the bar are not in charge of vehicles. I should like a reply on this question.
The third point is on page 19 of the Report. I refer to the evidence of the Parliamentary counsel which deals with the position of charges of drunken bicycling. It is a point of substance, not that a drunken cyclist is a man who necessarily may do a great deal of damage himself, but if he leads to a motor vehicle going off its course it can be as serious as drunken driving. In the consolidation of these passages, it seems to me that the seriousness of the offence of riding a bicycle while drunk appears to be lost, and I should like some questions to be raised on this.
My primary point, however, and one of considerable substance is whether with the Road Traffic Bill promised by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary last Friday to be presented before Easter—I believe that he said it was to be before Easter —am I right?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): To put the matter quite clearly, what I said was that I hoped that if all went well we should be able to present it before Easter.

Mr. Benn: If the definition of a pledge is that if, as one hopes, all goes well it will be possible, we shall have to accept that. Many people sign the pledge with no greater seriousness than the hope that if all goes well they will neither touch, taste nor handle, but if the hon. Gentleman gives that pledge we can only assume that it is a serious proposition.
This point was discussed again when it came before the Joint Committee and the Parliamentary counsel was asked why he was recommending the consolidation of a Measure which might be replaced before it came into force, and he replied:
… all that has happened in that there has been some speculation in the popular Press.

But, of course, it has gone a great deal further than that, certainly since last Friday's debate.
If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will look at the consolidation Measure and consider how many of its provisions are likely to be affected by the Bill which he knows will be presented to the House, he will see that there is a case for considering whether or not to postpone, because this Bill will receive the Royal Assent within a few days and almost immediately afterwards a new Bill will be printed to amend it. That is why I hope that my remarks are strictly within the rules of order, for the purpose of a consolidation Bill is to bring together existing legislation.
This is a good Bill because it makes the law clear, but it does not come into effect until September, by which time there is no question that the Minister's new Road Traffic Bill will have come into effect. In these circumstances, I submit that there is just cause for a rather fuller explanation than we had when the hon. Gentleman nodded his head, hoping to get the Bill through formally.

Mr. Speaker: On the question of order, everything that the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has been saying in my presence was in order, but I am in this difficulty, that I took the Chair in the middle of his observations. I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I understood that at one point the hon. Member had been saying that he was suggesting that the Bill made substantial changes in the law as it stands. Before any attempt is made to reply to him, I think I must rule that under these provisions the corrections and improvements approved by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills—as they have been before the Bill arrives here—are deemed to become law and cannot be amended here, and for that reason that kind of point is out of order. But the rest of what the hon. Member said I conceive to be in order. I hope that I am not blaming upon the hon. Member something which he did not say.

Mr. Benn: I am very glad to find, Mr. Speaker, that at least what you heard was in order. When you rose, I expected sterner treatment than that. I believe that what I said earlier was also


in order because, as I understand the procedure, the Joint Committee looks at the matter on behalf of the House and makes a recommendation to the House that in its opinion the Bill as presented by the draftsmen, with whatever amendments they make, does not alter the law. On further examination of this matter, I feel that I have found certain points that make a difference of substance. I was only, therefore—not with a view to recommending changes— drawing the attention of the Minister to certain points of substance which I detected had occurred in the process of consolidation, and since the Report is only a recommendation to this House and does not acquire the force of law until the House has ruled upon it by giving the Bill Second and Third Readings, I hoped it would not be out of order to point out this apparent distinction.

Mr. Speaker: It is out of order for this reason, that the Statute charges the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker, respectively, with seeing that no impermissible changes are made in the recommendations to which the hon. Member refers. The Lord Chancellor and myself have to be satisfied that they are within the particular degree of small change which is permitted by the Statute, and until we are so satisfied the House does not see a Bill of this kind. Much as I should like to, I cannot allow the hon. Member to question my judgment in the matter or that of the Lord Chancellor, because it happens to be committed by Statute to ourselves. That is the only distinction, and I conceive everything else the hon. Member has said, in a merciful line I should desire to take, as being in order.

Mr. Benn: If the law provides that either you are right or I am, Mr. Speaker, I must yield to the position.

Sir Wavell Wakefield (St. Marylebone): There is a point I want to raise, because it seems to me that in Clause 66 (2) the principle of past legislation has been altered. If this has taken place, could we please be informed of it? My point is a simple one. It would seem that under Clause 66 (2) a change is being made from the Home Office to the Ministry of Transport for the licensing of hackney vehicles in the Metropolitan area. I would like to have an assurance

that no such change is contemplated in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but that is not open to the hon. Member or the House at this stage. I should do slightly better had not the light above my head apparently fused at this moment. It is not open to the hon. Member to argue now that there are changes made which represent changes of substance. He can argue in any form he likes that the consolidation of the enactments should not take place but, mysteriously, for the purpose of so doing he may not refer to the substance of the enactments to be consolidated. Such is the Ruling of my predecessors. I cannot help it.

Sir W. Wakefield: Under those circumstances, I will leave the matter, but I hope that perhaps the Minister can give an assurance on the point I have asked.

Mr. Speaker: No, indeed, he cannot. Even Ministers cannot.

9.49 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) obviously found himself in the position of Lord Clive. He was astonished at his own moderation when he found that one point he had made was in order, and I must reply to it. That is the real question which we have to debate on this Motion, namely, whether it is expedient that we should consolidate. He quite fairly made the point that it is unusual, and he is right, that we should consolidate when there is another Bill likely to be introduced in the near future.
The reason why we have taken this course is that, apart from consolidation, the law on this subject—as the hon. Gentleman recognised when he said that it makes the law clear for the first time —is at the moment very far from clear. One has only to look at the Eighteenth Schedule, quite apart from the other Schedules, and see the enactments repealed and re-enacted, to realise what a fantastic task Parliament will have when a new Bill on this subject is introduced.
Therefore, it was felt that it would be very much in the interests of hon. Members if. before an amending Bill was introduced, quite exceptionally the previous law was consolidated. That was the main motive, but there was also this to be said, that on general principles


there is no reason why a consolidating Measure which is desirable should be held up while amendments are being considered. I think it is true to say that since 1930 there have been enactments relating to road traffic about once a year, and, therefore, if one held up any consolidation Measure pending amending legislation being completed, it might be held up almost indefinitely. I appreciate that the Measure which my right hon. Friend is to introduce might be a more far-reaching one than some in the past. Nevertheless, I think the point that I have made is a valid one.

Mr. Benn: The new legislation will be enacted before this consolidation Bill comes into law, because this Bill does not come into law until September this year. Are those circumstances not an additional reason for postponing the matter now and consolidating once the new Bill has been enacted?

The Solicitor-General: What we hope to do is to enact this Measure, although it does not come into force until September. But what we shall then be able to do is to introduce a Measure which will refer to this Measure, which will then have become an Act of Parliament. It is because we felt that that would be so immeasurably to the convenience of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that we have presented this consolidating Bill, and I ask that it should be passed.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Bryan.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC BODIES (ADMISSION OF THE PRESS TO MEETINGS) BILL

9.53 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision in the Bill for requiring members of the public other than representatives of the Press to be admitted to meetings of bodies exercising public functions, and for matters arising out of their admission.
The Instruction now proposed has been brought forward so that the House may consider it before the Standing Committee starts to examine the Public Bodies (Admission to the Press to Meetings) Bill later this week.
The Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on 5th February and given a Second Reading by a substantial majority. Its purpose, as hon. Members will recall, is to extend the present rights of the Press to be present at meetings of local authorities and other public bodies, and to give reporters certain facilities connected with reporting meetings and telephoning their reports.
The present law upon this subject is contained in the Local Authorities (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Act, 1908. That Act also started as a Private Member's Bill and was prompted by the discovery, as a result of a court decision, that newspaper reporters could not attend meetings of local authorities as of right. The 1908 Act, therefore, placed local authorities under certain obligations to admit representatives of the Press, and the Bill now before the House will extend the rights of the Press. But neither the earlier Act nor my hon. Friend's Bill deals with the public or gives the public any rights of admission to the meetings of local authorities or other bodies.
Oddly enough, only parish councils are required by Statute to meet in public, though local authorities and their committees have, of course, complete discretion to admit the public should they wish to do so. In practice, the public are usually given the same rights as the Press so far as local authority meetings are concerned, and that is the course suggested in the model standing orders issued


by my right hon. Friend's Department for the guidance of local authorities.
But the anomaly is a glaring one. The Press are given certain statutory rights to attend meetings, though the public, on whose behalf the authority acts and for whose information the reporters are allowed to be present, have none. Many hon. Members urged during the Second Reading debate that the Bill should be amended so that the public as well as the Press were given rights of admission. My right hon. Friend is advised, however, that without an Instruction on the point this would probably not be within the Committee's competence and Amendments on these lines would be outside the scope of the Bill.
I do not think that any Member will quarrel with the principle that the public should be given the fullest possible information about the actions taken by public bodies in their name and the reasons on which those actions are based. Where it is practicable for reporters to be admitted to meetings of public bodies, or of their committees, it is impossible to deny that members of the public should have comparable rights. Certainly, that is the view of my right hon. Friend, who said, during the Second Reading debate:
Had the Government been bringing forward a Bill on this topic, they would never have sought to legislate for the Press differently from the public. I have no idea whether this Bill can be so amended. But I have been invited to express the view of the Government which is most strongly that if facilities are given to the Press, comparable facilities should be given to the general public."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 5th February, 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1435.]
For that reason I would recommend this Instruction to the House both on behalf of my right hon. Friend and of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Committee would then be entitled to consider Amendments on this point.
I know that some people will profess to see difficulties. The accommodation available is, in many cases, limited; it will be said that there will be nowhere for the public to sit unless the body or its committee finds a larger meeting place. The Bill mentions other facilities besides mere admittance—advance notice of meetings, supply of the agenda and use of telephones, etc. What rights will the public have here?
I will not discuss these points of detail. They seem to be just of the kind that should be discussed and examined in Committee. My main purpose is to emphasise the principle involved—that the rights of the public are as important as the rights of the Press—so that we may place it within the power of the Committee, when it meets on Wednesday, to consider Amendments on this point.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: I must, first, apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, for not having been present at 3.30 when you replied to a point of order which I raised with you on Thursday. I was under the impression, wrongly, that you would be replying to it just before this debate started. Whatever happens to this Bill, I am quite sure that at the end I shall be more knowledgeable about procedure than I was. Despite the fact that you ruled against me, I thank you for troubling to look into this matter.
I am not surprised that an Instruction of this nature is necessary to allow the Committee to look at this point, because I expressed the view on Second Reading that it would not be possible, as the Bill stands, for the public to be brought into it. Several hon. Members accepted that, but the Minister of Housing and Local Government made it clear that had the Government been introducing the Bill they would have made provision for the public, and that statement surprised me slightly. The Parliamentary Secretary has just repeated it.
I remember that the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) thanked the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government for the assistance he had given which, she said, was as much as any private Member could expect from a Minister in preparation of a Bill of this nature. It surprised me that the Minister, obviously having been concerned at least in some way in giving assistance in the preparation of the Bill, should have found it necessary on Second Reading to point out that if he as a Minister had been doing the job—

Mr. F. V. Corfield: Perhaps the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) would let me also help him in his lesson in


procedure. The title of a Private Member's Bill has to be published a considerable time before the text. That may be the explanation why my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government was not in a position to help over the title.

Mr. Reynolds: I am aware of that. I realise that the hon. Lady herself was put in a ridiculous position by not being able to bring forward, because of Government pressure, the Bill she wanted to bring forward, and that she had this Bill pushed into her hands by the office outside.

Mr. Peter Kirk: If anyone pushed this Bill into her hand it was I, and I have nothing to do with that office at all.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Proceedings on the Motion relating to the Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House.—[Sir Keith Joseph.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Reynolds: It appears, however, that after the Second Reading debate, in which there was a generally expressed view among hon. Members on both sides of the House that it would toe impossible or unwise to give facilities to the Press without, at the same time, giving them to the general public, we were rather mystified as to how we should go from there. A rather shadowy figure appeared from time to time, giving advice as to how to find a way round this apparent difficulty.
Some of my hon. Friends were concerned to give some advice. I was sorry to hear them do so, and I shall no doubt be able to express my feelings to them at other places and times, in appropriate ways. We are faced with the Minister having first given advice about a Bill coming before us—and I appreciate the point which the hon. Member made about the Long Title having to be notified before the Minister was approached on the matter—and then hon. Members on this side of the House giving advice to the Minister and the hon. Lady who sponsored the Bill as to the finding of a way out of the dilemma.
The Bill has been presented to the House, debated and given a Second Reading and now, at this late stage—only 36½ hours before the Committee is due to start its deliberations—we have an Instruction which will considerably widen the whole scope of the proceedings in Committee. Yet the Second Reading was as long ago as 5th February. Six weeks have gone by since then. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have known for the last two or three weeks that the first meeting of the Standing Committee to deal with the Bill would be held on Wednesday of this week. I submit that it is a little unfair upon those hon. Members who have to meet on Wednesday to start dealing with a Bill to which many Amendments have already been put down. The extension of the scope of the proceedings will make it difficult for hon. Members to discuss the Amendments at short notice.
Nevertheless, I do not intend to oppose the Instruction. We can consider the question in Committee. I merely say that it will make it difficult for the Committee to get through the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that certain people are bringing forward objections about the widening of the scope of the Bill, and I hope that he will not underestimate those objections. There will be a great many. It is ridiculous to think that we can delete the word "Press" and replace it with the word "public" and assume that the public covers the Press. It is not as simple as that.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the Local Government Act, 1933. Paragraph 1 (4) of Part IV of the Third Schedule provides for the admittance of the public to meetings of parish councils. That provision will have to be taken out. Indeed, the Instruction which we are now debating will make it necessary for the Committee to look rather wider than the simple question of the admission of the public. The Committee will have to consider such matters as the provision of documents and other facilities for members of the public. Again, the Local Government Act provides that ratepayers, or local government electors— rather than the public—shall have the right to obtain, see, make extracts of and copy from documents in the possession of the local authority.
If we bring the public in, it is essential to make sure that the Bill codifies all


aspects of the law in which the public is concerned with local authorities, in connection with admission to its meetings and its rights to see and to obtain documents from local authorities. We should take the opportunities to make sure that members of the public as well as members of the Press need to look at only one Bill to ascertain their rights and that we shall not finish up with some information in the Local Government Act, 1933, and other bits of information in this Bill. While we are about it, we should do a good job in the sittings of the Standing Committee which will extend over the next few weeks.
I do not intend to oppose this Instruction, but I think it important that we shoud differentiate between members of the public and local government electors. I see no reason why the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley should have the right as a member of the public to attend the Islington Borough Council meetings or meetings of the London County Council. Were she a local government elector in Islington, or in the area of the London County Council, that would be different. By using the word "public" instead of "local government elector," or some similar phrase, I think that in this Instruction the net is being cast too wide. I am prepared to accept that it is a good idea to cast the net as wide as possible so that the Committee may look at every aspect, but I hope that it will bring the matter a little nearer to the local government elector rather than to the public as a whole.
I hope that the House will agree to this Instruction. I say again that here we are witnessing the use of a Parliamentary device to remedy a serious mistake in the drafting of the Bill. It has been used deliberately by the Minister, and if that situation develops, the House must expect that hon. Members will use the same Parliamentary device when it suits them to do so.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds) say

that he did not wish to oppose the Instruction. We may all agree that it is made necessary by the obvious shortcomings in the Bill. So far as I can see, it will complicate the work of the Standing Committee.
We are introducing a new principle into our law, that members of the public shall have the right to attend meetings of local authorities. I think that that is a good principle, but it is new and we shall have to consider how it will work out in practice. So far as I can see, were the powers in this Instruction used by the Committee, the public would be put in the same position regarding local authority meetings as they are now with regard to courts of justice. They would have the right to be present. But I think that it is generally understood that the courts of justice are not, therefore, obliged to provide unlimited accommodation for the public. It is understood that the right must be limited by what is practicable. The courts of justice properly have the power to exclude members of the public if they behave in a way likely to obstruct the transaction of business. If the public are to have the same right of admission to meetings of local authorities, presumably similar safeguards would have to exist.
I mention those two points to illustrate the kind of problem which the Committee will have to tackle if the scope of the Bill is to be enlarged in this way. For that reason, I hope that the Committee will have competent legal advice throughout its proceedings, because a good many points are liable to crop up on which a legal opinion will be necessary if the Committee is to do its work well. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to give us an assurance about that before we agree to this Instruction.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill that they have power to make provision in the Bill for requiring members of the public other than representatives of the Press to be admitted to meetings of bodies exercising public functions, and for matters arising out of their admission.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF DISEASE)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Civil Defence (Disease) Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.— [Miss Pitt.]

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: It occurred to me that these are Regulations which are not appropriately those which the Government should get on the nod. These are Regulations dealing with the prevention or control of disease in the event of hostile action involving the civil population. To avoid coming to the Dispatch Box on two occasions, I should like to pose one or two questions which crop up in my mind and to which the hon. Lady might reply.
First, what sort of diseases are these Regulations intended to cover? Are they the kind of diseases that were so anxiously feared in the recent disaster at Agadir, for instance, contamination of water and food and diseases of the typhus and typhoid species, or is it intended that these Regulations should cover other diseases arising out of radiation?
I do not think that we can expect any kind of hostile action in future involving the civil population which is not nuclear in character, and, therefore, the diseases which we are likely to get are those caused by radiation. If we consider that, it is very difficult to see what effect and what use these Regulations will be. In that event, what is the point of having them on a local basis? If there is to be a nuclear attack, then, presumably, all the local officials, who are to be so carefully and assiduously trained under these Regulations to deal with the situation that arises, will themselves be killed about four minutes after we get the warning of attack.
What kind of training is it expected should be given to those people? Are the hospital authorities to be involved in the training, or is it to be purely on a local government level? It is perhaps a little unkind to probe the Government too deeply on their civil defence policies, because in this day and age civil defence policies are themselves

of the cloud-cuckoo-land. Any Government has to go through motions of this kind, but, in the end, we must all face the fact that civil defence precautions are a kind of confidence trick which a Government are, unfortunately, obliged to perform. These Regulations provide one more argument which points to the fact that disarmament is the only practical policy for any country today.

10.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) asked me to explain the purport of these Regulations. They arise under the Civil Defence Act, 1948. The Civil Defence Designation Order, 1951, amending a 1949 Order, designated the Minister of Health under subsection (2) of Section 9 of that Act as the Minister responsible for taking measures to deal with casualties and disease for the purposes of that Act.
One of the purposes of the Act is to enable grants to be made to local authorities towards expenses in connection with the discharge of the functions conferred on them by functional Regulations made under Section 2 of the Act. In respect of casualties, the duties of making plans and giving training have been passed to local authorities by the Ambulance Regulations, 1951, and duties of casualty collection arrangements under the 1954 Regulations. It is possible for these purposes to incur expenditure and receive grant in respect of training both volunteer members of the Civil Defence Corps and members of their own staffs.
No duties have been passed to local authorities for dealing with disease or for training staff to meet possible wartime difficulties in this respect. No expenditure can, therefore, be incurred by the local authorities in giving such training to their staff. Nor can they be paid a grant for this purpose.
It is necessary to remove this difficulty. It is increasingly recognised here and in N.A.T.O. that the public health aspect of home defence is of great importance. The detailed measures that should be planned require further study, but it is necessary to cover the staff of those authorities which have no casualty responsibilities under the 1951 and 1954 Regulations. The Regulations now before the House will have the


immediate effect of enabling the Ministry of Health to hold civil defence courses for local authority public health staffs specifically related to disease in war and will enable the Minister, as planning develops, to require local authorities to make plans with the object of preventing disease or its spread in circumstances arising out of hostile action, or the threat of hostile action.
The hon. Member asked me some questions about the sort of disease involved. He anticipated my answer by referring to the sort of thing which could have happened at Agadir, the kind of disease which is created when water suplies or sanitation break down, diseases which many of us had to cope with during the last war. He asked me if these Regulations were intended to

cover disease arising out of radiation, to which I answer "No", so the subsequent points he made on that subject do not arise.
Finally, the hon. Member asked what kind of courses were envisaged. These will include courses organised by the local health authorities under the administration of the Ministry for their employees to equip them to deal with disease should the unfortunate necessity ever arise. I hope that the House will feel it is proper to accept the Regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Civil Defence (Disease) Regulations, 1960, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — GENERAL PRACTITIONERS (APPOINTMENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

10.18 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for taking a third debate at the end of a full day. Those who know and appreciate the work she did in her former Department know that she will do similar excellent work in her present Department. We differ politically, but not personally.
Local executive councils under the Health Service consist roughly of 50 per cent. laymen and 50 per cent. professional representatives. They are doing excellent work. One of their duties is to fill vacancies in the general practitioner service, subject to approval by the central body, the Medical Practices Committee. There is no doubt what the Act intended to happen. In Committee, on 20th June, 1946, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said that the executive council, after consulting the local doctors' committee, would select someone to fill such a vacancy and submit the name to the Medical Practices Committee. He said:
The only circumstances in which the Medical Practices Committee would be likely to question the local appointment would be where some improper action had taken place. In order that the Committee may have the authority to take such action it is necessary that formally …
I underline the word "formally"—
they should make the appointment. … Does anyone imagine that a busy central committee is going to worry itself about the whole of these individual local appointments? It is only going to worry if something wrong has happened … but there must be reserve power somewhere."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 20th June, 1946; c. 1642.]
My right hon. Friend also said, at col. 1622:
In fact, the individual doctor will be selected by the local Executive, and not by the Medical Practices Committee.
My right hon. Friend could not imagine that the Medical Practices Committee would interpret the reserve power of

which he spoke in the way that it has done. The Committee accepted my right hon. Friend's assurances.
The National Health Service Bill also gave individual doctors the right to appeal against such an appointment. The Committee discussing the Bill was uneasy about this, too. The present Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said about the right to appeal, at col. 1645:
It seems to me that the public may be deprived of services which are urgently required if this takes place. We cannot conceive that the majority of appeals are likely to succeed. Surely, a fairly small proportion of them only will succeed, and, for these reasons, it seems that this procedure will deprive the public of necessary services."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C. 20th June, 1946; c. 1622, 1646–7.]
Again, however, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale assured the Committee that there was no danger and the Committee accepted his assurances.
I want to show that things are not working out as the Minister, and, indeed, the House, at that time intended them to do. If there is a vacancy because a doctor has died or a new housing area has sprung up and needs a doctor, the executive council, after consulting the local doctors and the Medical Practices Committee, advertises the vacancy, then prepares a short list from the applicants, interviews them and chooses the one it considers to be the best doctor for the practice. His name goes up to the Medical Practices Committee. Sometimes, this body asks the executive council to make another short list to interview again. Sometimes, it itself short-lists the second time and interviews the second time. All this takes time.
Finally, both the executive council and the Medical Practices Committee reach agreement, which means that the executive council usually gives in. Even then, however, any doctor who feels aggrieved because he is not the one selected has the right of appeal against his successful colleague. The Minister can decide this appeal himself or set up an appeals committee to judge it. If the appeal is upheld, the appellant gets the post. If not, when all such appeals have been dealt with, the original appointment is confirmed. All this means delay. In the meantime, the locality may


urgently need its doctor. The new doctor's list may have dwindled by the time he is appointed. Patients in need will have found themselves another doctor.
Moreover, of all the groups concerned in the appointment of a doctor—the local executive council, the Central Council, the Minister and the appeals committee—it is only the local executive council which has the intimate knowledge which fits it for judging. Indeed, it is only the executive council which has done all the detailed work of shortlisting, interviewing, weighing up the medical and also the personal qualifications—and the Medical Practices Committee admits that the personal qualifications are important—of the candidate. In actual fact, the appeals committee may have seen only one candidate for the job: that is, the appellant himself. What was put into the Act as a reserve power or safeguard has been twisted, as Shakespeare would have said, "clean cam" from its original purpose.
The Minister and the Medical Practices Committee defend themselves in a recent letter which they have sent to local executive councils and both of them show that they have totally ignored what was said in Committee in 1946. The Medical Practices Committee claims that it may have special knowledge of particular applicants. If that is so, it should pass on that knowledge to the executive council when it makes the selection. The letter quotes as the Minister's view:
In the matter of selection for a vacancy the Medical Practices Committee has to give meticulous consideration to all applications.
It states of an appeal:
The Minister considered that the appellant ought to be selected on account of his greater experience and because his personality is not less impressive than the candidate selected by the Executive Council.
That may be contrasted with the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale in Committee on 20th June, 1946:
The Minister ought not to tell the local Executive Councils what grounds they should consider in making an appointment."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C. 20th June, 1946; c. 1648.]
The price of local government, like that of freedom, is eternal vigilance. Whitehall does not always know best. Executive councils are rightly protesting

at what is happening today. I have praised their character, their constitution and their quality. The Health Service is served by thousands of voluntary workers co-operating with professionals in every field, and executive councils are no exception. Moreover, they have now some fifteen years experience of administering their part of the Service. They feel that their part in making an appointment ought to be what the creator of the Act and the House intended that it should be. We still have, however, as late indeed as the Cohen Report, a suggestion that the local council may be susceptible to improper influences.
Both laymen and medical men on local committees resent this. They suggest reasonable reforms, compromises. They suggest that they should make the appointment, subject to only one check, namely, an appeal to the Medical Practices Committee. They suggest that appeals might be restricted at any rate only to those who have got on to a short list.
I would go much further than they do on the matter of appeals. In no other profession has a man the right to delay an urgent public appointment merely because he thinks he is a better man than the man who has been given the job. What a state Britain would be in if we allowed teachers the right of appeal when they are not appointed head masters, or curates because they are not made bishops, or Members of Parliament because they are not made Ministers.
I want to give some illustrations. I shall not name the authorities or the towns, although I have given the names to the Minister. I do not particularise the names, because this is a matter of principle and not of personality. My first example is in a southern town. There was a vacancy for a doctor. It was advertised in mid-August. The short list was drawn up on 8th September. The interviews and selection were on 21st September. If it had been merely a chief education officer or a town clerk, that would have been the end; he would have been appointed. However, the Medical Practices Committee asked why four named doctors had not been interviewed. So there had to be a re-interview on 14th October, and the original doctor was again selected. This time the Medical


Practices Committee accepted the recommendation, and the man was appointed on 26th October after a month's unnecessary delay.
In the same southern town another vacancy occurred. The interviews were on 11th October. This time the Medical Practices Committee accepted the recommendation of the executive council. Then one disappointed candidate appealed. Finally, on 26th October, the Minister awarded the place to the appellant, and in the opinion of the local executive council he was wrong in doing so.
I have not time to show why the executive council, with its greater intimate knowledge, was right and knew that it was right. I would only point out that the appellant succeeded only against the candidate selected by the executive council. There may have been better "second choices" on the short list. Indeed, there were if all of them had appealed, or if the decision on appeal had been to send the names back to the executive council so that it might have another look. The Appeals Committee said that this man was given the post because he had longer service than the man the executive council had selected. But if length of service automatically qualifies for an appointment there is no need for executive councils to do the selection at all. A comptometer could do the job.
Incidentally, in case the Parliamentary Secretary intends to quote the Medical Practices Committee's latest circular, my information is that in this case the appeals committee had seen only one man, the appellant, the other doctor having been represented at the appeal by a solicitor.
Now, a case from the North. Five men were put on the short list for interview, and one was selected. The Medical Practices Committee insisted on seven others being interviewed. This was done, and again no change was made in the original recommendation. Then one doctor, who was not on either short list, appealed and was given the post.
In a Midlands town there is a complaint of a delay of three months in filling a vacancy, during which time, says the local executive council, it was difficult to hold the practice together, and there was a "a procession of locum

stenens." In the case of another Midlands executive council, there was a short list of six and one man was recommended. The Medical Practices Committee insisted on a re-interview for three more doctors. The original choice was confirmed. The vacancy occurred in May, but the post was not filled until late in August.
In the same town, on another occasion, the executive council's recommendation was accepted by the Medical Practices Committee. Then a doctor, not on the short list, appealed. Arrangements were made by the Minister to hear the appeal, and then the appellant withdrew. The vacancy occurred in July; it was not filled until October. In a north Midlands town, the Medical Practices Committee turned down the recommendation of the executive council, held its own interview and, in this case, appointed a local man. So much for the danger of the local executive council being guided by local, improper influences.
In another case, in the South, the executive council recommended a man; the Medical Practices Committee insisted on a second interview itself, and chose someone else. On this occasion, the executive council's nominee or doctor recommended for the job appealed, and won. It took four months to fill that vacancy.
I am certain that when he reads some of these cases, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale will turn in his bed in the farmhouse where we are delighted to know he is steadily building himself up to full health and strength. This is certainly not what he intended. The Medical Practices Committee has its own important work to do. There are broad fields in which, rightly, it controls and directs the executive councils, but it has not the time, nor has it the men with the special ability that the local body possesses for medical selection for a particular practice.
Sir Harold Webbe said—and the then Minister agreed—in Committee:
…If I understand the Minister aright, under the Clause, with his Amendment, there is no question of the Medical Practices Committee ever having to decide, as between A and B, which is the better man for the appointment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 20th June, 1946; c. 1643.]
The over-riding of a local authority in the matter of an appointment poisons


relations between the local authority and its staff. It shakes the confidence of the body in itself and, unless there is corruption or suspicion of corruption, it is unjustified. On the Adjournment, I cannot argue the need to change the law or the Regulations, although the real solution would probably be to tidy up the Regulations in the way that the executive councils suggest.
I do claim, however, that the Act is not being administered as it was meant to be, and I want to urge the Minister to change current practice. Under the 1954 Regulation 10 (3), he has power either to deal with an appeal himself or to set up an appeals body. I suggest that, in future, he use that power in a way showing more confidence in the judgment and integrity of the executive councils.
He can at least adopt the common-sense attitude that if a man has not got even as far as the short list drawn up by a competent selecting committee it is extremely unlikely that he is the man who should have the job; or, again, if both local executive council and the Central Medical Practices Committee agree, it is not unlikely that they are right. He can also urge the Medical Practices Committee to get rid of this idea of "meticulousness" in the exercise of what was meant to be a reserve power and itself have more confidence in the local executive council.
Now, if there is a vacancy in a partnership, the doctor's recommendation for a new partner is accepted without question. If a single-handed doctor decides to add a partner or take on an assistant, again there is no question. It is only when an executive council, consisting of representative medical men and laymen, conscientiously and ably does the work of selection given to it that "meticulous examination"—I might almost say agonising reappraisal—takes place, and even the combined wisdom of both local executive council and Central Medical Practices Committee can be overthrown on the appeal of someone whom neither thought eligible to be on a short list.
My right hon. Friend thought that this cumbersome machinery for appointment would work
… with less and less interference, and it may be that some of it will pass almost into desuetude."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 19th June, 1946; c. 1622.]

The opposite has happened. I would urge the Minister to give due consideration to what I have said tonight, and to the claims of the executive councils to be trusted to do the job that Parliament, when it passed the Act, intended that they should do.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. John Howard: The debate has arisen from representations made to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and myself by the Southampton Executive Council. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary some little while ago setting out the views put before me by the chairman and secretary of that council, and the hon. Member for Itchen has reiterated most of those arguments this evening. I want to make only two points, briefly.
The first relates to the members of the council. I feel that it is most important that we should retain the interest of those people who give their time to this work. It is very important work which makes the whole system operate fairly. If we are to retain their interest and their support, it is clear that the decisions which they have made on the selection of candidates should not appear to be lightly over-ruled.
At the same time, I do not go all the way with the hon. Member for Itchen, because I feel that the right of appeal by an aggrieved candidate must be retained. In one case in Southampton the aggrieved applicant who appealed, and appealed successfully, was a coloured doctor. He had been unsuccessful in a number of applications and no doubt felt—although I am sure that this was not the case— that he had perhaps been unfairly discriminated against. He enjoyed the right of appeal. The unfortunate part about the appeal was the delay. This delay is inevitable and is caused by the present three-tier structure of the executive council, the Medical Practices Committee, and, finally, the inquiry set up by the Minister.
I hope that my hon. Friend will give some indication of whether this procedure can be streamlined so that appeals can be heard promptly. I hope that we can retain the right of appeal by doctors and at the same time retain the interest of the many people who give their time to this very valuable work.

10.37 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): Perhaps I may first be allowed to thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) for his very kind words to me on my new appointment. I am very glad that the co-operation which I enjoyed from him in my previous appointment is to be continued in this appointment. I should like to congratulate him on bringing into discussion on the Adjournment a matter which I think it would be very useful to have on the record of the House. May I also thank him for most generously notifying me early of the points which he wished to raise in order that I might have an opportunity to look up the answers.
Before discussing the procedure for filling the vacancies advertised by executive councils, it is worth while considering how big a part this procedure plays in the administration of the General Medical Service. Vacancies filled in this way represent only a small minority of the total admissions to medical lists of executive councils. Last year, for example, only 168 doctors were appointed to advertised vacancies by means of the procedure which has been under discussion tonight, whereas over 900 were admitted to the medical list in other ways.
As the hon. Member for Itchen said, there are no difficulties where the doctor becomes an assistant or a partner or, subject to need, where a new practice is started in a new area. But difficulties arise where there are vacancies in a single-doctor practice advertised by an executive council. These are the vacancies which are subjected to the selection procedure which has been criticised by both hon. Members.
Most advertised vacancies result from the death or resignation of a doctor in an established practice, though some are new practices in an area of rising population where the executive council has decided that an additional doctor is required. In 1959, 168 vacancies were filled in this way. The number of applications for each advertised vacancy averaged 24 in 1959, but the keenest competition is still for vacancies, especially those with substantial lists, in the southern parts of England. No fewer than 99 doctors applied for one

vacancy in Hove. On the other hand, several of the vacancies advertised in less popular areas had fewer than 10 applicants.
I welcome the opportunity this debate gives of making the point, not unknown to those concerned, that doctors who are eager to set up in practice would do well to consider applying for a vacancy in one of the less popular northern areas rather than to make repeated unsuccessful efforts to obtain a practice in parts of the country where the competition is most severe.
Complaints have been made that the three-tier system gives insufficient weight to the local knowledge of the executive councils and the local medical committees, and that it takes too long. The system gives full scope to the local knowledge possessed by executive councils and local medical committees since in their report to the Medical Practices Committee they are able to set out fully any special local circumstances which ought to be taken into account as well as advising which of the candidates they consider most suitable.
But, as the actual appointment is made by the Medical Practices Committee, it is clear to all that there has been no undue local bias or prejudice in reaching the decision. Moreover, the Medical Practices Committee, before making its selection, reviews all the applications, including those not short-listed. With the many applications received for some vacancies, short lists may exclude a large number of well-qualified candidates. At present, these candidates know that their claims are considered by a second body. But for this there might well be more appeals and a greater need for oral hearings, which could well cancel out any possible saving in time. The average time taken for filling a vacancy—in England and Wales 57 days and in Scotland 60 days —is well within the period of three months' notice which is required for a doctor retiring from the National Health Service.
The hon. Member quoted from a speech made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) on 20th June, 1946. If he will look at the context, he will see that the speech referred to procedure for admissions of all types to medical lists, and not merely to the filling of advertised vacancies. In


the same speech the right hon. Gentleman said, for example:
As. we are anxious to encourage the creation of group practices, obviously it would be desirable that the members of a local group should have a voice in helping to decide who their new colleague should be."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 20th June, 1946; c. 1641.]
That is exactly what happens now. Admission to a medical list to enter partnership is not subject to the procedure which has been criticised by the hon. Member. It is left to the doctors in the partnership to select their new colleague, and admission to the medical list is normally granted automatically by the Medical Practices Committee.
The speech also referred to under-doctored areas. Here again, admission to the medical list of a doctor wishing to put up his plate in an under-doctored area is not subject to the criticised procedure.
In 1959 there were 168 advertised vacancies and over 900 admitted to the medical list in other ways, making about 1,075 cases in all where the approval of the Medical Practices Committee was required. In less than 2 per cent. of these cases did the Medical Practices Committee go against the advice of the executive council and the local medical committee.
In the Ministry we are very conscious of the need for speed in filling vacancies, and I can assure both hon. Members that every effort is made to avoid delay both by the Medical Practices Committee and by the Ministry of Health in the event of an appeal, and the figures which I have already quoted show that decisions are usually given well before a resignation is due to take place.
The hon. Member has mentioned a number of cases where the executive council was concerned with delay which occurred in filling vacancies, and he was good enough to send me a note of these before the debate so that I have had an opportunity to look into the details. I do not think I can deal with them all now, but I should like to say something about two recent cases which he mentioned in his own part of the country. He referred to two cases in the South. They are, in fact, in Southampton.
In the first case, the executive council had long notice of a doctor's resignation. Although the Medical Practices Committee decided to hold a second interview, which made the procedure somewhat longer than usual, it decided to appoint the doctor recommended by the council, and this decision was given two-and-a-half months before the vacancy was due to occur.
In the second case, the procedure was lengthened, first by an appeal to the Minister, and later by the withdrawal of the successful appellant. In this case, a new practice was being created in an area of new housing and building which had not got very far. The Medical Practices Committee considered that October, 1960, would be a reasonable starting date. In spite of the lengthening of the procedure, the Minister's decision on the appeal was given a year before the vacancy was due to arise. The successful appellant later withdrew, but a new appointment was subsequently made and the starting date is still six months ahead.
Both the appellant and the candidate selected by the Medical Practices Committee attended before the persons appointed by the Minister to take the oral hearing of the appeal, and both gave evidence, and the selected candidate was legally represented.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, seemed to suggest that he would like to take away the right of appeal. This appears to me to be a personal view not shared by the Southampton Executive Council or the Executive Councils' Association. It is a suggestion which would require legislation for its implementation. The right of appeal was provided by Parliament in the National Health Service Act, 1946, in Section 34 (6). It would be a serious matter which would require very full justification to suggest that Parliament should be asked to withdraw a right which it thought fit to give in 1946.
In conclusion, may I say that this debate has had the advantage of drawing attention to the very great help which is given by members of the medical profession and other voluntary members of public bodies in the administration of the Health Service—help for which we are all grateful. I am glad


the hon. Member for Itchen paid testimony to the valuable work of members of Executive Councils and that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard) asked us to be sure to take action which would retain the interest of the members of these

councils. I can assure both hon. Members that we are very appreciative of that service. We believe the system works and we certainly wish to retain the interest.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.